EMfi 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


KOMAN  CATHOLIC  AND 
PROTESTANT   BIBLES  COMPARED 

THE    GOULD  PRIZE  ESSAYS 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  AND 

PROTESTANT  BIBLES 

COMPARED 

THE  GOULD  PRIZE  ESSAYS 


EDITED  BY 

MELANCTHON  WILLIAMS  JACOBUS,  D.D. 

DEAN  OF  HAETFORD  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


SECOND  EDITION 

REVISED  AND  SUPPLEMENTED  WITH 
APPENDICES  ORIGINALLY  ACCOMPANYING  THE  ESSAYS 

AND  A  COMPOSITE  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
COVERING  THE  GENERAL  LITERATURE  OF  THE  SUBJECT 


NEW    YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 
1908 


I    UNIVERSITY  ] 

OF 


COPYRIGHT,  1905,  1908,  BY 
BIBLE  TEACHERS  TRAINING  SCHOOL 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION vii 

PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION ix 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTEST xi 

CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT  VERSIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE. 

FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  BY  WILLIAM  THOMAS  WHITLEY          1 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  ENGLISH  AND  THE 
AMERICAN  REVISED  VERSIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  BY  GERALD  HAMILTON  BEARD  61 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSION  OF  THE 
BIBLE  AUTHORIZED  BY  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH,  AND  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVISED  VER- 
SION. THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  BY  CHARLES  B. 
DALTON 137 

APPENDIX 197 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  317 


175621 


PEEFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION 

THE  outstanding  result  of  this  contest  will  prob- 
ably be  to  bring  into  bold  relief  the  great  differ- 
ence between,  and  the  otherwise  practical  unity  of, 
the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant  Bibles. 

The  great  difference  between  the  versions  is  the 
presence  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Bible  of  the  Apoc- 
rypha. The  collection  of  books  so  named  is  rejected 
by  Protestants  as  uncanonical.  The  American  Re- 
vised Version  does  not  even  allude  to  the  existence 
of  the  Apocrypha.  Compared  with  this  difference 
between  the  two  versions  all  other  differences  are 
insignificant.  Whatever  may  be  the  merits  or  the 
defects  of  expression  in  either,  and  however  impor- 
tant may  be  the  correction  of  textual  errors  by  devout 
and  enlightened  scholarship,  both  versions  contain 
the  same  and  the  complete  message  of  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ. 


vn 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

THE  publication  of  the  Gould  Prize  Essays  in 
1905  aroused  new  interest  in  the  facts  attaching  to 
the  Protestant  and  the  Catholic  English  versions  of 
the  Bible,  and  gave  to  many  readers  new  ideas  re- 
specting the  historical  sources  and  the  literary  rela- 
tions of  these  versions  besides  their  value  as  repro- 
ductions of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

It  was  inevitable,  however,  that  the  traditional 
Scripture  controversy  between  these  two  Commu- 
nions should  reassert  itself  in  criticism.  This  has 
given  force  to  the  desire,  which  had  been  present 
from  the  first,  that  there  might  be  printed  with  the 
Essays  a  full  justification  of  the  positions  their  au- 
thors had  assumed,  together  with  a  complete  display 
of  the  sources  from  which  their  material  had  been 
drawn. 

This  desire  has  realized  itself  in  a  Second  Edi- 
tion in  which  the  Essayists  have  reviewed  the  text 
of  their  productions,  appending  to  them  in  restricted 
form  the  notes  and  comments  by  which  they  have 
substantiated  their  statements,  and  further  adding  to 
them  bibliographical  lists  brought  down  as  far  as 
possible  to  the  present  day,  from  which  a  composite 
bibliography  has  been  wrought  out,  saving  repeti- 
tions of  titles  and  classifying  the  sources  in  such  a 

ix 


X  PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 

way  as  to  render  them  of  most  service  to  those  who 
may  wish  to  use  them. 

In  the  work  of  the  First  as  well  as  of  the  Second 
Edition,  the  editor  desires  to  acknowledge  the  schol- 
arly help  and  assistance  of  Professor  Edward  Everett 
bourse,  of  the  Hartford  Faculty,  and  the  patient 
skill  of  Dr.  William  John  Chapman,  of  the  Case 
Memorial  Library,  by  whom  has  been  accomplished 
the  difficult  task  of  bringing  the  bibliographies  into 
their  present  serviceable  form. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTEST 

IN  November,  1903,  in  a  correspondence  between 
Miss  Helen  Miller  Gould  and  Father  Early,  of  Irv- 
ington-on-tlie-Hudson,  the  latter  made  the  following 
statement :  "  The  Catholic  Church  has  never  prohib- 
ited any  of  her  members  reading  the  Scriptures  or 
Bible.  In  every  family  whose  means  will  permit  the 
buying  of  a  copy,  there  you  will  find  the  authentic 
version  of  God's  words  as  authorized  by  the  Church, 
and  which  has  come  down  to  us,  unchanged,  from  the 
time  of  Christ  himself.  But  the  Catholic  Church 
does  object  to  the  reading  of  the  Protestant  version, 
which  goes  back  only  to  the  days  of  Henry  VIII  of 
England,  and  was  then  gotten  up  for  obvious  rea- 
sons." 

In  consequence  of  this,  desiring  to  stimulate  in- 
vestigation and  to  secure  a  brief  and  popular  state- 
ment of  facts  for  general  use,  Miss  Gould  made  Dr. 
White,  as  President  of  the  Bible  Teachers  Training 
School,  the  following  proposition:  that  she  would 
offer  prizes  for  the  best  essays  on  the  double  topic, 
first,  "  The  Origin  and  History  of  the  Bible  Ap- 
proved by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  "  second, 
"  The  Origin  and  History  of  the  American  Revised 
Version  of  the  English  Bible."  In  reply  to  this  offer, 
Dr.  White  said,  "  Standing,  as  we  do,  for  the  study 


xii  HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTEST 

of  the  English  Bible  and  for  the  encouragement  of 
the  most  thorough  investigation  in  all  subjects  relat- 
ing thereto,  an  obligation  is  laid  upon  us  by  you, 
which  we  are  glad  to  assume." 

Three  prizes  were  offered  for  three  essays  in  the 
order  of  merit:  a  first  prize  of  one  thousand  dollars, 
a  second  prize  of  five  hundred  dollars,  and  a  third 
prize  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars. 

The  essays  were  limited  to  fifteen  thousand  words, 
exclusive  of  illustrative  diagrams.  The  bibliogra- 
phies and  appendices  were  not  limited.  The  contest 
closed  October  1,  1904.  The  conditions  required 
judges  to  have  regard  not  only  to  the  historical  accu- 
racy of  the  papers  submitted,  but  also  to  the  adap- 
tability of  a  paper  to  the  average  reader. 

Nearly  five  hundred  persons  entered  their  names 
for  the  contest.  Two  hundred  and  sixty-five  essays 
were  submitted  to  the  judges.  The  writers  repre- 
sented all  quarters  of  the  world.  Several  essays  were 
submitted  by  Roman  Catholics. 

Earnest  effort  was  made  to  secure  at  least  two 
Roman  Catholic  judges.  In  this,  however,  the  Com- 
mittee failed,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  promi- 
nent members  of  the  American  hierarchy  joined  in 
the  friendly  search  for  men  whose  talents  and  schol- 
arship might  fitly  represent  a  world-wide  com- 
munion. 

The  Board  of  Judges  consisted  of  the  following 
gentlemen : 


HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTEST  xiii 

Rev.  EGBERT  WILLIAM  ROGERS,  D.D.,  Chairman, 
Professor  Drew  Theological  Seminary. 

Rev.  HENRY  MITCHELL  MACCRACKEN,  D.D., 
Chancellor  New  York  University. 

The  Hon.  WHITELAW  REID, 

Editor  New  York  Tribune. 

Rev.  FRANCIS  L.  PATTON,  D.D., 

President  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 

Rev.  MELANCTHON  WILLIAMS  JACOBUS,  D.D., 
Dean  Hartford  Theological  Seminary. 

Dr.  TALCOTT  WILLIAMS, 

Editorial  Staff  The  Philadelphia  Press. 

Rev.  WALTER  QUINCY  SCOTT,  D.D., 

Professor  Bible  Teachers  Training  School. 

The  Board  held  its  first  session,  with  all  the  judges 
present,  upon  the  seventeenth  day  of  October,  1904, 
and  at  its  final  meeting,  upon  the  thirteenth  day  of 
February,  1905,  the  members  unanimously  agreed 
upon  the  three  essays  here  printed  as  best  meeting 
the  conditions  of  the  contest. 


CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT 
VERSIONS   OF  THE  BIBLE 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY 

BY  WILLIAM    THOMAS    WHITLEY,   M.A.,    LL.M. 
(CAMBRIDGE,  ENG.),  LL.D.  (MELBOURNE,  AUSTRALIA) 

Member  of  the  American  Historical   Association;     Fellow  of   the 
Royal  Historical  Society ;    Fellow  of  the  Theological  Senate 


CATHOLIC  AND   PROTESTANT 
VERSIONS  OF  THE   BIBLE 


THE    QUESTION    STATED 

Two  editions  of  the  Bible  invite  our  attention. 
The  one  is  set  forth  as  being  "  translated  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate;  diligently  compared  with  the  He- 
brew, Greek,  and  other  editions,  in  divers  lan- 
guages." It  was  published  with  the  approbation  of 
Cardinal  Gibbons  of  Baltimore,  in.  1899.  The  other 
professes  to  be  "  translated  out  of  the  original 
tongues,"  and  to  be  authorized  by  the  American  Com- 
mittee of  Revision,  1901. 

Comparing  the  tables  of  contents,  where  differing 
titles  often  indicate  the  same  book,  the  1901  volume 
is  the  shorter.  It  omits  Tobit,  Judith,  several  chap- 
ters of  Esther,  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  more 
than  two  chapters  of  Daniel,  and  two  books  of  the 
Maccabees ;  nor  is  there  any  word  in  the  volume  that 
hints  at  the  existence  of  these  portions.  They  form 
an  integral  part  of  the  other  volume,  where  the  chief 
references  to  any  shorter  edition  are  in  notes,  which 
state  that  Jerome  detached  the  extra  chapters  of 
Esther  and  Daniel  from  the  place  they  occupied  in 
the  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  Bibles,  and  placed  them 
at  the  end. 

1 


2  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

These  notes,  and  the  reference  on  the  title-page  to 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  oblige  us  to  take  into  account  a 
magnificent  folio  edition  of  the  Bible  in  Latin,  pub- 
lished in  1592  at  Rome.  Prefixed  to  this  is  the  ex- 
press papal  authorization  of  the  book  as  the  standard 
Bible  for  the  Catholic  Church.  This  contains  at  the 
end  in  smaller  type  three  additions :  the  Prayer  of 
Manasses,  III  Esdras,  IV  Esdras.  A  note  to  the 
reader  explains  not  so  much  their  presence  here  as 
their  absence  from  the  body  of  the  work,  and  atten- 
tion is  drawn  to  the  absence  of  all  notes  from  the 
text  generally. 

Our  subject  will  be  treated  in  four  parts: 

1.  The  Authentic  Version  of  God's  Word  as  au- 
thorized by  the  Church  of  Rome. 

2.  Catholic  Versions  in  English. 

3.  The  Protestant  Version  of  1901. 

4.  Comparison  of  the  Versions. 


I 

THE  VERSION  AUTHORIZED  BY  THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME 

THE  Scriptures  in  the  oldest  form  known  to  us  are 
written  in  Hebrew,  Aramaic,1  and  Greek,  and  are 
grouped  in  two  great  collections  called  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New  Testament.  Ancient  copies  of  the 
whole  or  part  of  the  Old  Testament  have  come  to  us 
from  Jews  in  various  parts  of  the  world,  and  from 

*  The  superior  figures  refer  to  notes  in  the  appendix. 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  3 

their  rivals,  the  Samaritans.2  Still  more  ancient 
copies  of  the  ~New  Testament  may  be  seen  in  Rome, 
Saint  Petersburg,  London,  Paris,  and  elsewhere.3 
As  Christianity  spread,  the  Scriptures  were  trans- 
lated into  other  languages,  notably  Syriac,  Latin,  and 
Egyptian ;  and  many  ancient  copies  of  these  versions 
are  available.4 

Before  long  questions  arose  as  to  what  books  ought 
to  be  included  in  either  the  Old  Testament  or  the 
New.  The  books  of  the  New  Testament  read  pub- 
licly at  Rome  about  the  year  200  were  fewer  than 
Protestants  and  Catholics  now  use ;  and  one  book  was 
read  which  all  now  reject,  though  some  opposed  its 
public  use.5  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament  read 
in  and  near  Palestine  at  that  time  were  those  of  our 
Protestant  collection,  but  the  New  Testament  collec- 
tion was  not  quite  so  large  as  it  is  at  present.6  Those 
read  in  North  Africa  were,  in  the  New  Testament, 
also  not  so  numerous  as  in  our  present  list.7  More- 
over, there  was  nothing  to  hinder  any  copyist  retrans- 
lating these  books,  or  blending,  adding  to,  or  shorten- 
ing their  contents;  there  was  nothing  to  hinder  a 
scholar  putting  out  an  entire  new  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  Africa,  Spain,  Britain,  France,  and  Italy 
the  Latin  copies  went  through  these  varied  experi- 
ences, and  in  the  forty  or  more  surviving  examples 
of  these  early  anonymous  attempts  8  it  is  easy  to  see 
the  truth  of  the  complaint,  "  There  are  almost  as 
many  versions  as  manuscripts." 

At  length  Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  commis- 
sioned a  monk  from  Dalmatia,  named  Jerome,  to 


4  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

revise  the  old  Latin  versions  of  the  Psalms  and  Gos- 
pels.10 Jerome  had  traveled  widely  and  studied 
deeply,  and  so  was  both  the  best  scholar  of  the  day, 
and  sufficiently  a  man  of  the  world  to  recognize  the 
delicacy  of  the  task  offered  him.11 

He  began  with  the  Psalms,  which  were  needed  in 
daily  song.  The  Latin  versions  had  been  made,  not 
from  the  Hebrew  direct,  but  from  a  famous  Greek 
version  known  as  the  Septuagint.  He  revised  the 
Latin  with  the  aid  of  current  copies  of  the  Greek,  and 
Damasus  at  once  introduced  the  revision  into  his 
cathedral  at  Rome.10  In  384  he  finished  the  Gos- 
pels; but,  as  his  patron  died  that  year,  he  hurried 
over  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament  and  returned  to 
the  East.12 

At  Csesarea  he  found  a  critical  edition  of  the 
Greek  Bible  made  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  earlier 
by  Origen,  one  of  the  great  scholars  of  the  church; 
from  it  he  revised  his  Psalter  again.13  Then  he 
worked  fourteen  years  at  translating  the  Old  Testa- 
ment from  the  original  Hebrew,  to  which  the  work 
of  Origen  had  introduced  him.14  Much  discussion 
was  aroused  by  the  appearance  of  this  new  version. 
However,  it  gradually  made  its  way  in  the  West  on 
its  own  merits,  though  it  was  not  until  nine  centuries 
later  that  it  wholly  displaced  the  older  versions.15 
The  New  Testament  portion  wras  accepted  much  ear- 
lier than  the  Old  Testament,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
the  latter  work  was  done  on  far  more  radical  prin- 
ciples.16 

Jerome  deliberately  raised  and  discussed  the  im- 


FIRST   PRIZE   ESSAY  5 

portant  question,  What  books  shall  we  read  ? 17  In 
the  K"ew  Testament  he  used  exactly  our  twenty- 
seven.18  In  the  Old  Testament  he  took  his  stand  on 
the  list  of  the  Jews,  and  at  first  refused  to  go  beyond 
it.19  Although  the  Protestant  Old  Testament  ar- 
ranges, divides,  and  names  the  books  differently,  it 
contains  exactly  those  books  advised  by  Jerome,  as 
employed  by  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  including  our 
Lord  Himself.20  Most  of  the  other  books  then 
read  by  Christians,  and  intermixed  with  these,  Je- 
rome declined^  to  revise.21  He  stigmatized  them 
as  "  Apocrypha,"  a  name  previously  given  by  the 
Jews  to  forgeries.22  This  word  is  now  used  mainly 
in  the  sense  given  it  by  Jerome  —  to  signify 
books  once  claimed  as  parts  of  the  Bible,  but  dis- 
allowed. Catholics  apply  it  to  such  as  III  and  IV 
Esdras,  III  and  IV  Maccabees,  and  Enoch.  Prot- 
estants apply  it  to  a  wider  circle,  including  what 
Catholics  term  the  "  Deutero-canonical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,"  namely,  those  neglected  by 
Jerome.23 

In  the  West  Jerome  was  opposed  by  his  friend 
Augustine,  who  sat  in  a  council  of  African  bishops 
which  drew  up  for  the  Old  Testament  a  longer  list 
of  books.24  They  decided  that  besides  reading  on 
anniversary  days  accounts  of  the  martyrdoms  of 
saints,  churches  might  read  in  public  only  canonical 
Scripture.  This  included  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
Ecclesiasticus  or  the  Wisdom  of  Joshua,  Tobit,  Ju- 
dith, two  books  of  Maccabees,  and  editions  of  Jere- 
miah, Daniel,  and  Esther  longer  than  those  used  by 


6  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  Jews.  Twelve  years  later  the  Bishop  of  Eome 
was  asked  by  the  Bishop  of  Toulouse  what  was  the 
best  list  of  Old  Testament  books,  and  after  long  delay 
Innocent  sent  one  agreeing  in  contents  with  the 
African  list.25 

By  degrees  the  principal  churches  of  Britain, 
France,  and  Italy  fell  into  line,  and,  regardless  of 
Jerome's  opinion,  scribes  simply  copied  the  unre- 
vised  versions,  and  went  on  mixing  at  their  pleasure 
the  older  and  the  newer  versions.26  Thus,  about  the 
year  600,  Gregory  the  Great  found  older  and  newer 
versions  alike  in  use  at  Rome,  and  did  not  object.27 
All  he  did  was  to  try  to  limit  the  use  of  that  very 
Psalter,  which  his  predecessor  had  ordered  and 
adopted,  to  the  daily  song,  replacing  it  in  the  written 
Bibles  by  the  second  revision  that  Jerome  had  made, 
but  ignoring  the  third,  made  from  the  Hebrew.  And 
strange  to  say,  his  own  church  resisted  even  this 
change.28 

There  are  curious  instances  of  this  transition  in 
England.  The  Irish  monks  at  Lindisfarne  used  the 
older,  or  Roman  Psalter,  the  Italian  monks  at  Can- 
terbury brought  the  newer,  the  Gallican.29  Later  on, 
Abbot  Ceolfrid  of  Wearmouth  obtained  from  Rome 
three  copies  of  the  whole  Bible  in  the  new  version, 
and  one  in  the  old.  He  made  a  fresh  copy  of  the 
new  version  in  the  most  magnificent  style,  and  sent 
it  to  the  Pope  in  71 5.30  Bede  used  both  versions, 
his  exposition  of  Habakkuk  being  based  on  the 
older.29  But  by  degrees  the  newer  prevailed,  though 
with  some  mixture,  and  the  surviving  Latin  copies 


TY  J 

OF  >/ 

"  PRIZE   ESSAY 


made  in  England  are  almost  entirely  of  Jerome's  re- 
vision.31 

Not  long  afterward  the  German  King,  Charles  the 
Great,  desired  a  simple,  standard,  modernized  Latin 
text.  His  counselor  Alcuin  sent  over  to  his  native 
York  and  obtained  several  manuscripts  of  Jerome's 
version.  By  Christmas,  801,  he  gave  Charles  the 
first  copy,  and  from  his  abbey  at  Tours  rapidly  multi- 
plied others.  But  the  demand  was  so  great  that 
another  revision  and  older  unrevised  manuscripts 
were  also  pressed  into  service.  So  with  no  control, 
no  copyright,  no  printing,  every  scribe  did  as  he 
liked;  the  text  degenerated  again,  versions  inter- 
mingled, contents  varied.32 

In  the  age  of  the  Crusades,  revisions  of  the  Latin 
text  were  undertaken  by  Lanfranc  of  Canterbury,  by 
Stephen  Harding  of  Dorchester,  who  made  use  of 
Greek  manuscripts  and  had  the  help  of  Jewish  ad- 
visers, and  by  Cardinal  Maniacoria,  with  the  result 
of  even  greater  variations.33  The  contents  of  manu- 
scripts varied  in  details,  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Laodiceans,  with  Baruch,  III  and  IV  Macca- 
bees, and  the  Prayer  of  Manasses  being  sometimes 
inserted,  sometimes  omitted.34 

Eoger  Bacon  revived  Bible  study  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  three  important  corporations  undertook 
to  prepare  lists  of  corrections  needed  in  the  ordinary 
Latin  text 35 — the  Dominicans,  the  Franciscans,  and 
the  theologians  at  the  University  of  Paris,  headed 
by  Stephen  Langton,  who  made  our  modern  chapter 
divisions.36 


8  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

For  some  time  attention  was  diverted  from  the 
subject  by  the  quarrels  between  Popes  and  Councils. 
But  in  1439  a  council  assembled  at  Florence  with 
delegates  even  from  the  Eastern  Church.  This 
formally  announced :  "  We  define  the  holy  apostolic 
see  and  the  Roman  pontiff  to  have  primacy  over  the 
whole  earth,  and  the  Roman  pontiff  to  be  himself 
.  .  .  head  of  the  whole  church,  and  father  and 
teacher  of  all  Christians."37  The  Eastern  patri- 
archs and  the  French  disagreed,  but  Eugenius  IV 
soon  rallied  nearly  all  the  West  under  him.  Clothed 
with  this  plenary  authority,  he  issued  a  Bull  on  the 
subject  of  the  Bible,  in  which  he  neglected  all 
distinctions  between  canonical  books  and  those  for 
private  reading  only,  declaring  that  all  the  books 
specified — those  of  the  African  list — were  inspired 
by  the  same  Holy  Spirit.38  He  was  succeeded  by 
three  or  four  scholarly  Popes,  who  recognized  the 
Latin  text  as  faulty;  and  Nicholas  V  ordered  a 
fresh  version  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  made.39 

The  invention  of  printing  soon  raised  the  old  ques- 
tions in  a  more  acute  form.  Sixtus  IV  was  quick 
to  favor  a  new  edition  of  the  Latin  Bible.  Cardinal 
Ximenes  of  Alcala  (Latin,  Complutum)  in  Spain, 
under  the  patronage  of  Leo  X,  prepared  a  magnifi- 
cent edition  of  the  Bible  known  as  the  Complutensian 
Polyglot.  This  work  contained  O)  the  Hebrew  text 
of  the  Old  Testament,  with  Aramaic  portions,  (&) 
the  Aramaic  Targum  on  the  Law  by  Onkelos,  (c)  the 
Septuagint  Greek  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  (d)  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  and  (e)  the  Greek  text  of  the  New 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  9 

Testament,  in  addition  to  which  the  Targum  and  the 
Septuagint  were  accompanied  by  literal  Latin  trans- 
lations. By  the  time  it  was  ready,  however,  a  revolt 
against  papal  authority  arose,  and  the  Pope  hesitated 
to  sanction  the  work  he  had  forwarded.  But  it  be- 
came clear  that  others  would  publish  without  waiting 
for  his  leave.  Hebrew  Testaments  were  put  forth  by 
Jews  and  Christians.  Erasmus  dedicated  to  Leo  a 
hastily  edited  Greek  Testament  with  a  new  Latin 
paraphrase.  So  in  1520  he  formally  approved  the 
publication  of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot.40 

In  that  same  year  Karlstadt,  the  head  of  the 
University  at  Wittenberg,  published  a  little  treatise 
on  the  canon,  giving  the  history  of  the  disputed 
books,  and  advising  a  reconsideration  of  the  question 
of  contents.  The  scholars  of  Zurich  published  the 
first  modern  language  version,  taking  Karlstadt's  ad- 
vice and  putting  the  disputed  books  together  under 
Jerome's  title,  "  Apocrypha."  41  This  was  the  first 
appearance  in  the  form  so  familiar  to  Anglicans. 
Luther,  in  turn,  went  further,  and  separated  from 
the  New  Testament  James,  Jude,  Hebrews,  and 
Revelation,  putting  them  in  a  fourth  group,  without 
a  collective'  title.42 

Long  before  these  disturbances  arose,  a  Dominican 
friar  had  been  making  a  new  Latin  version  with  the 
approval  of  three  Popes,  which  he  published  at  Lyons 
in  1528,  after  twenty-five  years  of  work.  Soon  three 
more  Latin  versions  appeared,  two  by  Protestants.43 
And  thus  the  printing  press  repeated  and  intensified 
the  old  evils  of  many  competing  Latin  versions. 


10  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Consequently,  when  the  Emperor  Charles  V  per- 
suaded the  Pope  to  call  a  Council,  among  the  very 
first  questions  considered  were  those  that  concerned 
the  Scriptures.  And  no  one  can  criticise  the  answers 
as  being  hazy.44  It  was  decided  that  all  the  books 
specified  at  Florence  were  to  be  received  and  vener- 
ated equally,  as  God  was  the  author  of  them  all.45 
This  leveling  up  of  certain  "  Deutero-canonical 
books  "  or  "  Apocrypha  "  was  much  opposed  by  some 
bishops,  who  were  not  silenced  by  the  Bull  of  1439 ; 
but  finally  it  was  adopted,  and  a  curse  was  pro- 
nounced on  all  wrho  refused  to  acquiesce  in  the  de- 
cision. To  this  day  the  decree  remains  an  article  of 
faith  with  Roman  Catholics,  and  was  reaffirmed  at 
the  Vatican  Council.46 

The  canon  being  settled,  the  language  had  to  be 
chosen.  The  original  languages  were  discussed,  but 
it  was  thought  that  to  adopt  these  alone  as  standards 
would  place  priests  and  theologians  at  the  mercy  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek  scholars.  Inasmuch,  however,  as 
Latin  had  been  common  to  all  scholars  of  the  West 
for  a  millennium,  this  was  taken  as  a  convenient  me- 
dium ;  but  the  decree  does  not  depreciate  the  original 
texts,  either  explicitly  or  by  implication.  Careless 
Catholics  and  polemical  Protestants  often  go  astray 
at  this  point.47 

Next  arose  the  question  of  the  particular  version  in 
Latin.  Several  had  recently  been  ordered  or  ap- 
proved by  Popes,  but  other  innovations  were  shock- 
ing the  Roman  world,  so  the  majority  adhered  to 
precedent.48  The  decree  finally  ran  that  the  "  old 


FIRST  PRIZE   ESSAY  11 

and  common  version  (vulgata  editio)  49  which,  by 
the  long  usage  of  so  many  ages,  has  been  approved 
in  the  church  itself,  is  to  be  held  as  authentic  in 
public  lectures,  disputations,  preachings,  and  exposi- 
tions." But  the  bishops  deliberately  refused  to  make 
this  an  article  of  faith,  treating  it  only  as  a  matter 
of  discipline  subject  to  revocation.  Hitherto,  how- 
ever, it  has  not  been  changed,  and  in  1870  was 
expressly  ratified.46 

In  the  same  decree  it  was  declared  unlawful  "  for 
anyone  to  print  or  cause  to  be  printed  any  books 
whatever  on  sacred  matters  without  the  name  of  the 
author;  nor  to  sell  them  in  future,  or  even  to  keep 
them  by  them,  unless  they  shall  have  been  first  ex- 
amined and  approved  by  the  ordinary." 

The  next  point  was  to  get  a  standard  edition  of 
this  chosen  version,  and  a  committee  of  six  was  ap- 
pointed to  publish  it  before  the  Council  rose.50  But 
unexpected  delays  occurred,  the  Emperor  wrote  to 
express  his  amazement  that  fifty-three  men  of  no 
particular  scholarship  should  so  summarily  settle  in- 
tricate questions,  the  Pope  ordered  the  committee  not 
to  act  hastily,  and  political  disturbances  caused  the 
premature  dispersal  of  the  Council.  New  commit- 
tees were  presently  appointed  at  Rome.  Meantime 
many  printers  were  at  work,  and  the  theologians  of 
Louvain  put  out  two  editions  based  on  good  material 
collected  by  Stephanus  of  Paris,  and  corrected  by 
reference  to  the  originals.51 

At  length  one  of  the  Roman  scholars  became  Pope, 
as  Sixtus  V.  He  soon  published  a  fine  edition  of  the 


12  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Greek  Bible ;  52  then  one  of  the  Old  Latin,  a  mosaic 
of  quotations  from  the  early  Latin  writers ;  53  and 
in  1590  completed  his  work  by  a  three-volume  edi- 
tion of  the  common  Latin  version,  printed  from 
early  copies  carefully  corrected  by  quotations.54  He 
prefaced  it  by  a  Bull  approving  it  by  his  apostolic 
authority  transmitted  from  the  Lord,  and  announc- 
ing that  this  was  to  be  used  "  as  true,  legitimate, 
authentic,  and  undoubted  in  all  public  and  private 
debates,  readings,  preachings,  and  explanations ;  and 
that  anyone  who  ventured  to  change  it  without  papal 
authority  would  incur  the  wrath  of  God  Almighty 
and  of  the  blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul."  He 
reserved  copyright  for  ten  years,  and  ordered  that 
after  this  period  all  future  editions  should  be  con- 
formed to  it,  all  existing  copies — even  missals  and 
breviaries — should  be  corrected  by  it  and  should  be 
officially  certified  by  inquisitor  or  bishop.  He  for- 
bade any  marginal  notes,  whether  of  various  readings 
or  of  explanation.55 

This  might  seem  final;  but  Sixtus  died  that  year, 
leaving  behind  the  revisers  whose  work  he  had  per- 
sonally corrected,  including  the  famous  Jesuit  cardi- 
nal, Bellarmine,  whom  he  had  offended  by  the  sup- 
pression of  one  of  his  books.56  The  next  Pope  died 
in  ten  days;  his  successor  was  induced  to  disown 
this  legitimate  and  authorized  version.  And  though 
he  too  died  soon,  and  the  next  within  a  few  months, 
Bellarmine  was  appointed  to  buy  up  this  official 
edition  and  issue  another.57  Clement  VIII  appointed 
Cardinal  Allen,  of  Oxford  and  Douay,  together  with 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY  13 

an  Italian  prelate,  to  revise  the  text  of  his  predeces- 
sor.86 Allen  had  studied  the  principles  of  textual 
criticism,  as  is  shown  in  the  preface  to  the  Rheims 
Testament.  Instead  of  relying  chiefly  on  early 
quotations,  he  referred  to  the  original  languages. 
This  resulted  in  more  than  three  thousand  altera- 
tions from  the  text  of  Sixtus — whole  passages  being 
omitted  or  introduced,  and  the  verses  being  divided 
differently.58  Bellarmine,  however,  saved  appear- 
ances by  saying  in  the  preface  that  Sixtus  himself 
had  intended  to  do  this,  owing  to  the  misprints  and 
other  errors.  This  second  edition  had  a  new  Bull 
by  Clement,  which  specified  among  other  things  that, 
as  before,  no  word  of  the  text  might  be  altered,  that 
no  various  readings  might  be  registered  in  the 
margin,  and  that  all  copies  were  to  be  conformed 
to  it.59 

K"ow,  so  far,  the  saving  clause  of  Sixtus  would 
cover  this  proceeding,  for  this  edition  was  "  under 
papal  authority  " ;  but  it  proved  to  have  more  than 
two  hundred  misprints  of  its  own.  Moreover,  while 
the  edition  of  1590  had  rigidly  excluded  all  books 
but  those  decreed  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  had 
eschewed  all  apparatus  whatever,  the  edition  of  1592 
added  in  smaller  type  the  Prayer  of  Manasses  and 
two  books  of  Esdras,  explaining  in  the  preface  the 
reason  why  this  was  done.60  The  third  edition,  in 
1593,  went  further,  and  gave  the  prologues  of 
Jerome,  an  index  of  quotations  in  the  K"ew  Testa- 
ment from  the  Old,  a  table  of  interpretation  of 
names,  and  a  general  index  to  the  contents  of  the 


14  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Bible.  And  while  it  indeed  corrected  some  of  the 
printer's  errors,  Kaulen  declares  that  it  "  left  a 
large  number  uncorrected,  and  added  new  mistakes 
of  its  own.77  61  In  1598  a  fourth  edition  appeared, 
of  handy  size,  and  with  all  the  above  features,  only 
the  extra  books  were  now  printed  in  the  same  size 
type  as  the  canonical.  It  was  also  furnished  with 
three  tables  of  corrections  to  the  editions  of  1592, 
1593,  and  1598,  which,  however,  are  most  inade- 
quate. This  was  the  last  edition  before  the  monop- 
oly of  publication  was  surrendered.  All  four  edi- 
tions were  attributed  to  Sixtus,  not  to  Clement.62 

Since  this  last  standard  edition  of  an  authentic 
version  of  a  fixed  canon  in  a  chosen  language,  Rome 
has  taken  no  further  official  steps  in  the  matter. 
Two  critical  editions  of  Jerome's  own  translation, 
freed  as  far  as  possible  from  later  corruptions,  have 
indeed  been  published  by  Catholics,  but  they  do  not 
profess  to  be  the  Authentic  Version  adopted  by  the 
church.63  Vercellone  at  Koine  collected  and  pub- 
lished various  readings,  but  did  not  incorporate  them 
in  his  reprint  of  1861,  which  gives  the  standard  text. 
Pope  Pius  X  has,  however,  now  commissioned  the 
order  of  the  Benedictines  to  revise  the  text  of  the 
Vulgate.  Modern  critical  editions  by  Protestants 
like  Corssen  or  Wordsworth  and  White  are  not  yet 
completed. 


II 

CATHOLIC  VERSIONS  IN  ENGLISH 

THE  average  American  takes  for  granted  that  the 
version  authorized  by  the  Catholic  Church  is  not  in 
Latin,  but  in  English.  This  idea,  however,  is  due  to 
a  lax  use  of  the  phrase  "  authorized."  By  the  rules 
approved  by  Pius  IV  after  the  Council  of  Trent 
every  bishop  had  the  right  to  authorize  a  version  for 
use  in  his  own  diocese.64  Although  these  rights  were 
often  exercised  in  unison,  yet  the  fact  remains  that 
there  is  no  one  version  in  English  so  authorized  as 
to  exclude  others.  In  a  Catholic  shop  may  be  bought 
authorized  editions  that  differ.65  To  understand  this 
state  of  affairs  we  must  consider  the  history  of  the 
English  version  which  the  Catholic  Church  has  pro- 
duced. 

Before  the  year  1000  many  parts  of  the  Bible  were 
translated  into  English  from  the  Latin  repeatedly, 
but  the  Norman  Conquest  put  a  stop  to  their  use.66 
A  new  and  complete  version  was  published  in  1382 
by  Wyclif.67  It  contained  a  few  explanatory  notes 
and  alternative  translations  which  the  scribes  wrote 
in  a  different  hand,  thus  setting  the  fashion  copied 
in  our  present  Bibles  of  italicizing  words  not  in  the 
original,  but  added  to  complete  the  sense.68  A  re- 
vision of  the  version  was  soon  undertaken,  but,  owing 
to  Wyclif 's  death,  in  1384,  the  work  devolved  upon 
other  hands,  being  published  about  1388.69  The 

15 


16  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

higher  clergy  opposed  the  circulation  of  this  version, 
desiring  to  keep  a  monopoly  of  Bible  knowledge  to 
their  own  guild ;  70  but  in  1390  Parliament  refused 
to  place  a  ban  upon  it.71  The  bishops  forbade  its 
use ;  72  but  the  people  read  it,  and  the  Pope  ignored 
an  attempt  to  discourage  it.73  For  more  than  fifty 
years  it  was  freely  copied,  edited,  and  irresponsibly 
revised.  More  than  one  hundred  and  seventy  ex- 
emplars survive,  some  being  pocket  editions,  others 
elaborate  volumes  for  the  monasteries  or  the  libraries 
of  dukes  and  princes.74  Its  use  fell  off  during  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses,  and  when  printing  found  its  way 
to  England  it  seems  to  have  dropped  out  of  favor, 
and  not  to  have  attracted  the  notice  of  any  pub- 
lisher.75 Only  in  the  north  did  Murdoch  Nisbet  turn 
it  into  Scotch  about  1520;  but  there  was  no  press  in 
Scotland  then,  and  a  newer  version  was  freely  im- 
ported within  five  years.  Whether  in  English  or 
Scotch,  it  has  only  been  printed  as  a  monument  of 
the  past,  not  for  actual  popular  use.76  Specimens 
of  this  and  other  early  versions  are  given  in  the 
notes.77 

Caxton  was  the  first  to  print  any  portion  of  the 
Bible  in  English.  Jacobus  de  Yoragine,  archbishop 
of  Genoa  in  the  thirteenth  century,  had  compiled  the 
Golden  Legend,  a  collection  of  lives  of  saints,  which 
became  very  popular  in  Italy,  France,  Bohemia,  and 
England.  The  stories  of  Adam,  Noah,  the  Apostles, 
and  other  Bible  characters  are  mostly  in  the  very 
words  of  Scripture ;  so  when  Caxton  in  1483  trans- 
lated the  French  version  into  English  he  incidentally 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY  17 

printed  part  of  the  Bible  in  the  vernacular.  The 
same  thing  was  done  by  Wynken  de  Worde.  As  a 
consequence  the  Bible  narratives  came  to  be  widely 
circulated.  These  versions,  however,  were  not  de- 
liberately used  by  subsequent  translators,  even  if 
they  were  haunted  by  reminiscences  of  them.78 

Catholic  versions  were  belated  in  England;  al- 
though before  1500  Germany,  Italy,  France,  Flan- 
ders, Spain,  Holland,  and  Bohemia  had  their  ver- 
nacular Bibles  in  print.79  The  Dean  of  Saint  Paul's 
in  1512  charged  the  Southern  Convocation  with  neg- 
lect of  duty,80  and  Wolsey  was  so  grieved  at  the 
lethargy  and  ignorance  of  the  clergy  that,  with  leave 
of  the  Pope  and  of  the  King,  he  diverted  the  revenues 
of  many  priories  to  found  colleges.81  At  Cambridge 
a  Dutch  monk,  Erasmus,  pursued  the  Bible  studies 
that  resulted  in  the  Basle  edition  of  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures, which  he  dedicated  to  Leo  X,  writing  in  the 
preface,  "  I  wish  they  were  translated  into  all  lan- 
guages." 82 

Tyndale  furnished  the  next  version  of  the  Bible 
for  England,  but  his  work  was  so  bound  up  with 
the  translation  of  Luther  that  Catholics  eschewed 
it ; 83  while  the  proceedings  under  Henry  toward 
translating  or  revising  were  not  with  Catholic  good 
will.  For  instance,  in  1530  Warham  and  other  dig- 
nitaries reported  to  the  University  of  Cambridge  that 
"  the  publication  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  vul- 
gar tongue  is  not  necessary  to  Christians;  and  the 
king's  majesty  and  the  bishops  do  well  in  forbidding 
to  the  people  the  common  use  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 


18  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

in  the  English  tongue."  84  Seven  years  later  Henry 
was  excommunicated  by  the  Pope,  and  the  immedi- 
ate consequence  was  that  the  printing  of  the  Great 
Bible  in  Paris  was  stopped.  This,  of  course,  did  not 
prevent  its  completion  in  England,  nor  even  its  in- 
dorsement by  such  prelates  as  Heath  and  Tunstall, 
under  the  direct  orders  of  Henry.85  Under  Edward 
also  numerous  editions  appeared,  but  the  accession 
of  Mary  promptly  closed  Bible  printing.  Elizabeth 
resumed  her  father's  policy  in  this  as  in  other  mat- 
ters; so  a  final  breach  with  Rome  occurred  in  1570, 
when  the  Pope  excommunicated  the  Queen.  This 
had  been  foreseen,  and  a  Lancashire  graduate  of 
Oxford,  Dr.  Allen,  had,  in  1568,  with  papal  ap- 
proval, founded  a  seminary  at  Douay  for  the  train- 
ing of  English  Catholics.  Ten  years  later  it  was 
shifted  to  Rheims,  and  there  a  translation  of  the 
Bible  was  at  once  begun.86  The  preparation  was  long 
and  thorough,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  Douay 
diaries ;  but  the  project  of  giving  an  English  version 
to  the  laity  was  hardly  spontaneous,  as  is  evident 
from  the  preface  to  the  version,  or  from  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  a  letter  by  Allen : 87 

"  Perhaps  indeed  it  would  have  been  more  desirable 
that  the  Scriptures  had  never  been  translated  into 
barbarous  tongues ;  nevertheless  at  the  present  day, 
when,  either  from  heresy  or  other  causes,  the  curi- 
osity of  men,  even  of  those  who  are  not  bad,  is  so 
great,  and  there  is  often  also  such  need  of  reading 
the  Scriptures  in  order  to  confute  our  opponents,  it 
is  better  that  there  should  be  a  faithful  and  Catholic 


FIRST   PRIZE   ESSAY  19 

translation  than  that  men  should  use  a  corrupt  ver- 
sion to  their  peril  or  destruction;  the  more  so  since 
the  dangers  which  arise  from  reading  certain  more 
difficult  passages  may  be  obviated  by  suitable  notes." 

With  such  motives  three  or  four  well  equipped 
Oxford  scholars,  of  whom  Gregory  Martin  was  chief, 
began  the  work  of  translating  the  New  Testament.88 
They  used  a  good  edition  of  the  Latin,  published 
hard  by  at  Louvain,  and  revised  the  earlier  English 
versions,  basing  their  work  largely  on  Wyclif  and 
Tyndale.89  Other  helps  of  which  they  availed  them- 
selves were  a  parallel  Latin-English  Testament  pub- 
lished by  Coverdale  in  1538,  and  the  original  Greek 
text.90  In  order  to  give  doctrinal  expositions  of  con- 
troversial texts,  notes  were  added  which  were  often 
of  a  vigorously  controversial  character.91 

Funds,  however,  were  lacking  to  publish  the  Old 
Testament,  though  it  was  ready  for  the  press.  But 
later,  in  1582,  the  New  Testament  was  issued  at 
Rheims.  The  preface  not  only  avowed  the  motives 
of  the  translators,  but  criticised  rather  severely  the 
Protestant  versions,  and  laid  down  sound  principles 
for  ascertaining  what  is  the  real  Greek  text.92 
Seven  years  later  it  was  reprinted  parallel  with  the 
Bishops'  text  by  Fulke,  a  Protestant,  who  replied  to 
the  attack  in  numerous  critical  notes.93 

In  1598  appeared  the  final  form  of  the  Vulgate,  of 
which  Allen  was  joint  editor,  authorized  by  Pope 
Clement,  and  ordered  as  the  standard  for  all  trans- 
lations. In  1600,  consequently,  the  Catholics  re- 
issued at  Antwerp  the  English  version  of  the  New 


20  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Testament.94  As  far  as  the  translation  is  concerned, 
however,  it  is  little  more  than  a  reprint  of  the  issue 
of  1582,  though  the  notes  were  augmented  and  re- 
arranged.95 After  the  Old  Testament  was  revised 
by  the  standard  Vulgate  it  was  published  in  1609 
and  1610  by  the  Seminary  at  Douay,  whither  the  in- 
stitution had  returned.  It  appeared  in  two  volumes, 
with  fewer  and  milder  notes,  but  with  some  longer 
"  Recapitulations  "  inserted  at  intervals.96  The  sec- 
ond volume  contains  III  and  IV  Esdras ;  but,  as  the 
issue  was  only  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  was  im- 
possible to  place  these  apocryphal  books  in  the  same 
position  as  they  occupy  in  the  Vulgate — at  the  end 
of  the  whole  Bible. 

In  1618  was  published  a  "  Confutation  of  the 
Rhemists7  Translation,"  on  which  Cartwright  had 
labored  for  twenty  years,  but  it  is  not  certain  that 
it  had  much  effect  on  subsequent  revisions.  The 
third  edition,  printed  at  Antwerp,  agrees  closely  with 
the  second,  but  is  noteworthy  as  being  the  first  to  be 
issued  in  pocket  size,  showing  that  a  demand  for  the 
book  was  arising  among  the  Catholic  public. 

When  Laud  was  repressing  the  Puritans  and  tol- 
erating the  Catholics  a  fourth  edition  was  put  out  at 
Rouen,  and  was  followed  soon  by  a  reprint  of  the 
Old  Testament  uniform  with  it.  Protestants  also 
absorbed  new  critical  editions  of  the  New  Testament 
by  Fulke,  parallel,  as  was  his  first  edition,  with  the 
Bishops7  Version.  With  this,  however,  publication 
ceased,  no  more  copies  being  placed  on  the  market  by 
either  party.  Even  when  James  II  favored  Catho- 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  21 

lies,  nothing  is  heard  of  any  proposal  to  circulate 
the  Catholic  version.  It  is  indeed  said  that  in  1698- 
1699  the  New  Testament  was  reprinted  at  Dublin, 
but  the  edition  was  apparently  suppressed  for  inac- 
curacy. And  as  regards  a  Belfast  edition  of  1704, 
it  is  not  clear  what  version  is  meant.97 

The  strength  of  Catholicism,  however,  was  in  Ire- 
land, with  its  center  in  Dublin.  A  priest  named 
Nary  felt  that  the  old  version  was  hardly  intelligible, 
and,  therefore,  made  a  new  translation  from  the  Vul- 
gate, which  was  duly  approved  and  published  by 
1719.  The  penal  laws  being  in  force,  however,  there 
was  not  much  demand  for  the  book,  and  it  fell 
flat.  Yet  its  appearance  and  authorization  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  no  one  version  had  a  monopoly 
among  Catholics.98 

The  Douay  Seminary,  however,  was  roused  to 
emulation,  and  the  president,  Robert  Witham,  pre- 
pared a  totally  new  version,  which  he  published  in 
1730.  There  were  thus  now  three  Catholic  versions 
authorized,  two  issuing  from  the  same  institution.99 
In  this  same  year  another  Douay  scholar,  Richard 
Challoner,  was  sent  to  London,  and  soon  made  him- 
self a  name  in  literature:  his  Garden  of  the  Soul 
is  a  classic.  In  his  use  of  the  Bible  he  neglected  his 
president's  version,  which  he  himself  had  indorsed, 
and  reverted  to  the  original  Rheims  New  Testament, 
soon  putting  forth  a  fifth  edition,  slightly  modern- 
ized.100 When,  however,  he  was  consecrated  bishop 
and  advanced  to  authority,  he  undertook  a  more 
elaborate  work.  Calling  in  other  scholars,  he  pub- 


22  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

lished  in  1749  another  New  Testament,  "  newly  re- 
vised and  corrected  according  to  the  Clementine  Edi- 
tion of  the  Scriptures."  In  1750  he  published  the 
whole  Bible,  and  continued  revising  and  publishing 
until  1777.  His  work  was  epoch-making.  Newman 
says  that  in  the  Old  Testament  his  labors  "  issue  in 
little  short  of  a  new  translation,  nearer  to  the  Protes- 
tant than  it  is  to  the  Douay."  And  the  same  high 
authority  declared  that  "  at  this  day  the  Douay  Old 
Testament  no  longer  exists  as  a  Received  Version  of 
the  Authentic  Vulgate."  Though  Newman  does  not 
say  so,  Challoner  dropped  from  the  Douay  the  extra 
books,  and  adopted  the  list  decreed  by  the  Council 
of  Trent.101  As  to  the  New  Testament,  the  third 
edition  differs  from  the  first  in  more  than  two  thou- 
sand places,  though  the  title-page  gives  no  notice  of 
the  fact.102 

At  that  time  Ireland  was  a  separate  kingdom,  and 
enjoyed  a  regular  Catholic  hierarchy.  When  Chal- 
loner died,  in  1781,  a  Dublin  priest  took  up  the  work 
and  published  a  Testament,  "  the  fourth  edition,  re- 
vised and  corrected  anew"  with  the  approbation 
of  his  archbishop.  It  introduced  more  than  five  hun- 
dred changes  into  the  text.103  Troy,  Archbishop 
of  Dublin,  then  took  charge  more  directly,  and  in 
1^91  put  out  an  elaborate  impression  with  the  same 
editor.  It  links  itself  to  the  Dublin  Testaments  of 
Challoner  and  MacMahon  by  styling  itself  the  Fifth 
Edition.104  To  this  work  was  prefixed  the  transla- 
tion of  a  letter  from  Pius  VI  in  1778  to  Martini, 
Archbishop  of  Florence,  commending  his  diligence  in 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  23 

making  an  Italian  version.105  The  letter  is  often 
reprinted  in  modern  Irish  editions,  and  is  a  valuable 
commentary  on  the  fact  that  subsequent  Popes  have 
suppressed  the  circulation  of  Martini's  version.106 

Scotland  appeared  next  on  the  scene.  A  learned 
priest  had  long  been  contemplating  a  new  version 
from  the  originals  on  critical  principles.  Two  vol- 
umes were  published  in  1792  and  1797,  and  were 
promptly  condemned  by  the  vicars-apostolic  on  the 
express,  ostensible,  and  legitimate  ground  that  they 
were  not  examined  and  approved  by  due  authority.107 
An  authorized  edition  was  immediately  issued  at 
Edinburgh,  but  the  copies  were  mostly  sold  in  Eng- 
land and  Ireland.108 

In  1788  the  primitive  Rheims  text  was  repub- 
lished  at  Liverpool  with  the  original  preface  and 
notes.109  It  may  well  be  imagined  that  its  quaint 
diction  provoked  challenge,  and  four  years  later 
a  new  revision  appeared,  when  the  words  "  an- 
cients," "  chalice,"  "  pasche,"  "  penance  "  gave  way 
to  "  elders,"  "  cup,"  "  passover,"  "  repentance." 
Four  hundred  such  changes  appeared  to  the  end  of 
Acts  alone;  while  the  notes  were  greatly  altered, 
some  being  dropped  and  new  ones  written.110  Thus 
by  1800  there  were  circulating  in  the  British  Isles  at 
least  seven  types  of  text  in  the  New  Testament :  these 
two,  two  with  Troy's  approval,  and  three  of  Chal- 
loner's  revisions. 

In  America,  as  soon  as  independence  was  declared, 
a  Scotchman  at  Philadelphia  printed  a  Protestant 
Testament,  and  as  soon  as  peace  was  certain,  several 


24  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

printers  began  issuing  Bibles.111  One  of  these,  Mat- 
thew Carey,  saw  the  opportunity  of  catering  to  his 
numerous  Irish  kinsmen ;  so  he  obtained  the  patron- 
age of  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  and  in  1790  the 
second  complete  Catholic  Bible  in  English  was  is- 
sued, a  reprint  of  Challoner's  1750  edition,  by  the 
firm  of  Carey,  Stewart  &  Co.,  at  Philadelphia.112 
Next  year  appeared  Troy's  Irish  text,  which  was 
republished  by  Carey  in  1805  with  the  advertise- 
ment, "  First  American,  from  the  fifth  Dublin,  edi- 
tion." 113 

The  north  of  England  has  always  been  a  Catholic 
stronghold,  and  at  Newcastle  appeared  a  careless 
reprint  of  the  1792  Testament.110  Gibson  sanc- 
tioned a  folio  Bible  at  Liverpool,  "  revised  and  cor- 
rected "  by  two  local  clergy  for  a  second  edition,  so 
as  to  coincide  with  Challoner's  last  edition  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  reprinted  apparently  in  London 
with  the  sanction  of  the  vicar-apostolic.114  Manches- 
ter issued  two  rival  editions :  one  contained  an  early 
text  of  Challoner's,  with  his  Old  Testament  notes, 
the  New  Testament  notes  being  taken  from  the  in- 
dependent version  of  Witham.  This  edition,  by  a 
series  of  accidents,  lost  its  proper  authorization.115 
The  other  edition  has  a  text  which  Newman  describes 
as  partly  Challoner's,  partly  Troy's,  partly  original, 
despite  its  claim  to  have  followed  Challoner.  It 
came  into  notice  through  its  new  set  of  elaborate 
notes  written  by  a  priest  named  Haydock,  by  whose 
name  the  edition  is  known.  It  has  been  reprinted 
at  Dublin,  Edinburgh,  London,  and  New  York  with 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  25 

abundant  approbations,  but  with  numerous  varia- 
tions of  text  and  abridgment  of  notes.116 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  inconvenience  of  so 
many  varying  types  of  text  should  be  felt.  Troy 
himself  grew  more  conservative  and  in  later  edi- 
tions reverted  somewhat  toward  MacMahon's  text  of 
1783.117  Attempts  were  made  to  bridge  the  gulf  be- 
tween Catholics  and  Protestants.  In  Ireland  a 
schoolbook  was  printed  with  the  consent  of  both  Dub- 
lin archbishops,  giving  extracts  from  the  Bible  in 
both  versions  on  opposite  pages ;  but  differences  arose 
and  the  book  dropped  out  of  use.118  In  England  a 
Roman  Catholic  Bible  Society  was  formed  by  Bishop 
Poynter  and  others,  which  printed  four  large  edi- 
tions of  the  1749  text,  with  Challoner's  notes  toned 
down ;  but  the  movement  was  opposed  by  other  Cath- 
olics and  died  out,  the  stereotype  plates  passing  for 
a  while  into  the  hands  of  a  Protestant  printer.119 

Perhaps  it  was  as  a  loyal  Catholic  offset  to  this 
tendency  that  an  Irish  edition  appeared  with  a  text 
and  notes  based  in  the  Old  Testament  on  Challoner's 
edition,  but  with  the  New  Testament  following  the 
Liverpool  folio  of  1788,  namely,  the  original  Rhem- 
ish  edition.120  This  time  it  caught  Protestant  atten- 
tion, and  a  storm  sprang  up;  the  printer  retired  to 
another  diocese  and  reissued  the  entire  Bible  with 
even  more  irritating  adjuncts.121  At  length  Troy 
withdrew  his  approbation,  and  went  so  far  as  to 
sanction  a  large  edition  of  a  New  Testament  abso- 
lutely free  from  all  notes.  He  certified  that  the 
text  conformed  to  that  of  former  approved  editions, 


26  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

especially  his  own  of  1791,  but  it  seems  to  be  the 
only  accurate  reprint  of  Challoner's  second  edi- 
tion.122 The  fact  is  that  attention  was  then  centered 
on  the  notes,  and  it  is  important  that  for  once  an 
archbishop  licensed  an  edition  containing  none,  de- 
spite the  rules  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  Subse- 
quently, the  same  printer  issued  a  tract  containing 
the  usual  notes — not  those  of  1582 — which  was 
freely  given  away,  and  was  of  a  size  that  could  be 
bound  up  with  the  New  Testament.  Many  copies 
were  sold  in  London,  and  some  booksellers  pasted  in 
a  new  rescript  of  Pius  VII  to  the  English  vicars- 
apostolic,  commending  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  bind- 
ing in  the  tract,  and  altering  the  title  to  state  that 
it  was  "  with  Annotations/' 123 

Under  Archbishop  Murray,  of  Dublin,  a  new  era 
set  in.  He  approved  a  fresh  revision,  which  approxi- 
mated Challoner's  early  editions.  Stereotype  plates 
were  cast  which  have  been  extensively  used,  and  the 
text  chosen  has  greatly  influenced  later  editions.  For 
instance,  Newman  shows  that  it  has  won  the  approval 
of  the  authorities  in  England  and  at  Glasgow,  Newry, 
Belfast,  and  Philadelphia.124  Yet,  to  oblige  the  com- 
missioners of  Irish  education,  he  joined  with  his  fel- 
low Catholic  archbishops  in  approving  the  use  of  the 
English  Eoman  Catholic  Bible  Society's  plates  for  at 
least  five  editions.125 

Cardinal  Wiseman  well  summed  up  the  position 
when  he  said  that  of  the  current  editions,  nominally 
of  the  Rheims  New  Testament,  "  many  may  appear 
rather  new  versions  than  revisions  of  the  old.77 126 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  27 

Adding  to  the  variety  of  the  English  texts,  he  ap- 
proved an  edition  based  largely  on  Troy's  later  edi- 
tion, but  with  a  few  original  renderings.127 

But  a  more  important  work  was  now  under  way. 
In  1836  Lingard  had  published,  not  a  revision,  but 
a  new  version  of  the  Gospels,  with  notes  critical 
rather  than  doctrinal  or  practical.128  In  England  it 
made  no  popular  headway,  and  simply  illustrates 
afresh  that  there  is  no  one  English  version  authorized 
to  the  exclusion  of  others,  provided  all  are  made 
from  the  Vulgate.  But  in  America  it  was  taken  as 
the  basis  of  a  new  revision  of  the  Rheims  edition  by 
Francis  Patrick  Kenrick,  then  Bishop  of  Philadel- 
phia, who  completed  the  New  Testament  in  1851. 
He  was  encouraged  to  revise  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  manuscript  was  unanimously  approved  by  the 
Ninth  Provincial  Council  of  Baltimore  in  1858, 
which  desired  that  a  version  for  common  use  should 
be  prepared  on  its  basis.  Archbishop  Kenrick  com- 
pleted the  publication  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
revision  and  republication  of  the  New  Testament  in 
1862,  with  a  preface  reciting  these  facts,  and  numer- 
ous original  notes,  critical  and  explanatory.129  Yet 
no  further  edition  has  been  called  for,  and  it  is  too 
early  to  say  whether  Spencer's  new  version  from  the 
Greek,  with  reference  to  the  Vulgate  and  Syriac,  will 
meet  any  better  fate.130 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  plain  that  Catholics 
have  been  far  ahead  of  Protestants  in  constant  au- 
thorized revision.  England,  Ireland,  Scotland,  and 
America  have  rivaled  one  another  at  this  work,  till 


28  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  fittest  lias  had  every  chance  to  survive.  Newman 
said  for  England  in  1859,  "  There  is  at  present,  as 
regards  the  Old  Testament,  one  and  only  one  re- 
ceived text,  or  very  nearly  so,"  that  being  Challoner's 
of  1750.  Gigot  in  1901  agrees  with  this  statement 
as  far  as  America  is  concerned,  and  the  Protestant 
Lupton  in  1904  concurs  in  it  without  any  geograph- 
ical limitation.131 

As  regards  the  New  Testament,  the  case  is  radi- 
cally different.  Newman  found  that  the  Irish  copies 
mostly  followed  Challoner's  early  editions ;  the  Eng- 
lish followed  his  later  editions,  or  Troy's  revision; 
the  American  introduced  fresh  novelties.132  Since 
then  less  has  been  said  about  revision,  but  no  uni- 
formity has  been  attained.  Lupton  indeed  affirms 
that  Challoner's  text  is  the  only  one  current,  but  a 
slight  examination  of  editions  taken  at  random  shows 
that  he  was  not  quite  at  home  in  this  detail  of  his 
subject.  Gigot  enumerates  six  types  still  current, 
one  at  Dublin,  two  at  London,  two  at  New  York,  be- 
sides Husenbeth's  edition  of  Haydock. 

Two  remarks  may  fitly  close  this  section.  The 
Protestant  Scrivener  honorably  vouches  that  "no 
case  of  willful  perversion  of  Scripture  has  ever  been 
brought  home  to  the  Khemish  translators."  133  The 
Catholic  Gigot  acknowledges  "  that  at  the  present 
day  there  is  really  no  one  received  text  of  the 
Eheims  New  Testament  among  English-speaking 
Catholics."  134  See  Diagram  4. 


Ill 

THE  PROTESTANT  VERSION 

THE  American  Standard  Edition  avows  in  one  of 
its  prefaces  that  the  foundation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment version  was  laid  by  William  Tyndale.  He  in 
his  turn  claimed  originality  for  his  work,  saying  in 
his  Address  to  the  Reader :  "  I  had  no  man  to  coun- 
terfet,  neither  was  holpe  with  englysshe  of  eny  that 
had  interpreted  the  same,  or  soche  lyke  thige  I  the 
scripture  beforetyme."  135  How  great  is  the  debt  of 
the  English-speaking  world  to  him  may  be  seen  by 
transcripts  of  his  original  rendering  of  four  passages, 
where  out  of  1109  words,  796  remain  unchanged  to- 
day in  the  modern  Catholic  and  Protestant  edi- 
tions.136 

Tyndale  did  not  at  first  mean  to  defy  the  authori- 
ties, and  when  suspected  by  the  ignorance  and  con- 
servatism of  the  country  clergy,  he  appealed  for  help 
in  his  undertaking  to  Tunstall,  Bishop  of  London,  a 
generous  scholar.  After  a  while,  however,  he  under- 
stood "  Not  only  that  there  was  no  rowme  in  my 
lorde  of  londons  palace  to  translate  the  new  testa- 
ment, but  also  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it  in  all 
englonde  .  .  ."  137  As  a  consequence  he  was  com- 
pelled to  seek  refuge  abroad,  and  this  almost  forced 
him  into  the  arms  of  the  Protestants.  His  work  was 
largely  done  at  Wittenberg,  the  residence  of  Luther, 
at  Worms,  where  the  bold  friar  had  defied  Pope  and 

29 


30  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Emperor,  and  at  Marburg,  where  he  and  Zwingli  had 
conferred.138  Yet  very  little  bias  is  to  be  seen  in 
the  text,  which  he  did  not  "  improve  "  as  Luther  had 
done,139  but  rendered  most  faithfully.140  Although 
Sir  Thomas  More  professed  to  find  a  thousand  errors 
in  it,  he  specified  only  a  few,  some  of  which  have  been 
adopted  by  modern  Catholics.141 

The  great  cause  of  offense  was  the  glosses,  or  mar- 
ginal notes.  To  add  these  had  been  the  custom  in 
Latin  Bibles,  and  in  the  English  Bible  founded  on 
them;  but  Tyndale  set  the  example  of  a  vigorous 
polemic  against  his  adversaries.  We  may  think  to- 
day that  it  would  have  been  wiser  to  let  Scripture 
speak  for  itself,  and  not  to  point  the  moral  on  the 
same  page ;  for  instance,  that  it  was  enough  to  trans- 
late "  Whatsoever  ye  bynde  on  erth,  shal  be  bound  in 
heven,"  without  the  comment,  "  Here  all  bind  and 
loose." 142  Indeed,  his  second  edition  was  freed 
from  notes,  and  subsequent  writings  shoAV  that  he 
realized  how  seriously  he  had  handicapped  his  work 
by  such  a  device.143 

This  enterprise  was  quite  independent  of  the  King, 
who  is  well  known  to  have  been  entitled  by  the  Pope 
"  Defender  of  the  Faith  "  against  the  new  opinions 
of  Luther,  and  who  long  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  Tyn- 
dale's  pleas  for  an  authorized  version.144  Any  idea 
that  this  version  was  due  to  Henry's  personal  or 
political  leanings  is  quite  mistaken,  as  a  comparison 
of  dates  would  prove.  As  late  as  1531  Henry  de- 
scribed Tyndale.'s  works  as  "  imagened  and  onely 
fayned  to  enfecte  the  peopull."  145 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY  31 

In  a  later  preface  the  translator  gave  his  reasons 
for  undertaking  the  work :  "  I  had  perceived  by  ex- 
perience how  that  it  was  impossible  to  establish  the 
lay  people  in  any  truth,  except  the  Scriptures  were 
plainly  laid  before  their  eyes  in  their  mother  tongue, 
that  they  might  see  the  process,  order,  and  meaning 
of  the  text ;  for  else,  whatsoever  truth  is  taught  them, 
these  enemies  of  all  truth  quench  it  again." 

His  New  Testament  was  published  in  1526,  and 
at  once  met  a  wide  sale  in  Scotland  and  England. 
He  continued  revising  and  translating  till  he  had  fin- 
ished from  Genesis  to  Chronicles,  and  Jonah.146 
Tunstall  kept  on  trying  to  buy  and  burn  the  copies, 
and,  when  he  complained  that  the  money  simply 
helped  Tyndale,  was  told  that  he  should  have  bought 
and  burned  the  type.  This  hint  was  improved  upon ; 
the  translator  himself  was  bought  by  treachery,  stran- 
gled, and  burned.  !N"or  did  Henry  try  to  save  him. 

But  Henry  had  now  broken  with  the  Pope  for 
political  and  personal  reasons,  and  had  chosen 
Thomas  Cromwell  as  his  minister.  The  Convoca- 
tion of  Canterbury  petitioned  for  an  authorized  ver- 
sion without  marginal  notes;  and  Cranmer  divided 
among  the  higher  clergy  for  revision  an  existing  ver- 
sion.147 Meanwhile  another  translator,  Myles  Cover- 
dale,  apparently  encouraged  by  Cromwell,  produced 
the  first  complete  printed  English  Bible,  translated 
chiefly  from  the  Zurich  German  Bible  of  1534,  from 
which  he  adopted  the  separation  of  the  Apocrypha, 
though  the  Xew  Testament  is  based  more  on  Tyn- 
dale.148 It  was  soon  reprinted  in  England,  and  the 


32  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

third  edition  was  "  set  forth  with  the  kynge's  moost 
gracious  licence."  149 

His  work,  however,  was  not  from  the  originals,  so 
that  another  edition  was  produced  based  on  Tyn- 
dale's,  pieced  out  with  a  revision  of  Coverdale's  for 
the  end  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Apocrypha, 
furnished  with  elaborate  prefaces,  indices,  and  notes, 
and  sold  to  two  London  merchants.150  They  issued 
it  under  the  name  of  Thomas  Matthew,  getting  the 
"  Kinges  most  gracyous  lycece."  151 

The  notes  were  of  a  character  likely  to  annoy 
Henry,  so  Cromwell  decided  on  a  revision  by  some 
one  he  could  control.  Richard  Taverner,  a  scholar 
of  Wolsey's  at  Cardinal  College,  where  he  had  helped 
circulate  the  early  Testaments  of  Tyndale,  had  since 
translated  several  Lutheran  books.152  Cromwell  ap- 
pointed him  clerk  to  the  signet,  and  set  him  to  revise 
the  Matthew  Bible,  in  which  he  not  only  toned  down 
the  notes,  but  improved  the  English.  He  paid  more 
attention  to  the  Vulgate  than  his  predecessors.  His 
version  came  out  under  splendid  auspices,  being  the 
first  published  by  the  king's  printer.  But  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  his  revision  was  reprinted  two  or 
three  times,  it  fell  into  disuse  under  Mary,  and  was 
superseded  by  other  versions,  though  he  lived  till 
1567.  Its  influence  can  be  traced  in  the  Rheims 
New  Testament  more  than  in  Protestant  editions.153 

Convocation  became  anxious  in  1536  to  expedite 
the  promised  authorized  version.154  Coverdale  was 
engaged  as  an  experienced  editor,  but  was  not  fur- 
nished with  a  complete  manuscript  text.  He  took  as. 


FIRST  PRIZE   ESSAY  33 

his  basis,  not  Wyclif's  nor  his  own  version,  but  Mat- 
thew's, into  which  he  introduced  corrections  made  by 
eight  or  nine  bishops.155  In  1539  this  Great  Bible 
was  published,  and  a  revision  next  year  appeared 
with  a  preface  by  Cranmer  and  the  notice :  "  This 
is  the  Bible  apoynted  to  the  vse  of  the  churches."  156 
A  copy  of  this  first  Authorized  Version  was  ordered 
to  be  placed  in  every  church  for  public  reading.157 

In  the  troublous  years  that  followed,  dissenters 
from  the  religion  established  for  the  time  being 
found  it  wiser  to  emigrate.  For  a  century,  conse- 
quently, Geneva,  Rheims,  Antwerp,  Douay,  Rouen, 
and  Amsterdam  became  great  centers  for  English 
translations  or  printing.  In  the  seven  years  of  Ed- 
ward's reign  forty  editions  of  Bibles  and  New  Testa- 
ments appeared.  During  Mary's  reign  no  edition 
was  printed  in  England;  only  a  Primer  printed  at 
Rouen  with  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  attached  found 
episcopal  favor.158 

In  1557  Whittingham  broke  new  ground  at 
Geneva  with  the  first  critical  Testament  ever  issued. 
It  was  based  on  Tyndale's  work,  revised  with  the 
help  of  Beza's  new  Latin  version  and  commentary, 
then  furnished  with  the  new  verse  divisions  of 
Stephanus  with  summaries  and  notes,  and  was 
printed  in  Roman  type  and  issued  in  a  cheap  and 
handy  form.159  On  the  appearance  of  Beza's  Greek 
Testament  he  and  two  helpers  began  a  revision,  and 
then  revised  the  Old  Testament  of  the  Great  Bible, 
publishing  the  Psalms  separately  in  1559.  Next  year 
the  whole  Bible  was  published  by  the  English  con- 


34  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

gregation  at  Geneva.  It  contained  an  epistle  to 
"  Qvene  Elisabet,"  which  resulted  in  her  granting 
Bodley  the  English  copyright  for  seven  years.160  It 
contained  also  an  address  "  To  ovr  Beloved  in  the 
Lord  the  Brethren  of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ire- 
land," in  consequence  of  which  it  became  the  Scotch 
Authorized  Version — the  Scottish  King's  printer 
being  licensed  to  print  it,  the  Church  of  Scotland 
ordering  every  parish  to  purchase  a  copy,  and  the 
Scots  Parliament  directing  every  substantial  house- 
holder to  procure  one.161  The  version  also  became 
the  People's  Bible  and  molded  the  words  of  Shake- 
speare and  Bunyan.  It  was  revised  and  reprinted 
both  in  Great  Britain  and  on  the  Continent,  down  to 
1776  in  as  many  as  one  hundred  and  sixty  edi- 
tions.162 But  while  the  Great  Bible  was  devoid  of 
notes,  and  was  so  far  neutral  that  all  parties  might 
possibly  unite  in  using  it,  the  Genevan  Bible  revived 
the  precedent  of  Tyndale  in  giving  numerous  notes. 
Of  these  some  displeased  Catholics,  others  Arminians, 
and  others  bishops  or  sovereigns  who  believed  in 
divine  right. 

Elizabeth  tried  at  first  to  conciliate  all  parties, 
and  while  she  publicly  accepted  a  manuscript  copy 
of  Wyclif  s  Gospels,163  almost  her  only  action  in  this 
popularizing  of  the  Scriptures  was  to  repeat  her  fa- 
ther's order  to  place  a  large  Bible  in  each  church.164 
Eor  this  purpose  a  revision  of  the  authorized  Great 
Bible  was  made,  resulting  in  the  Bishops'  Bible, 
which  was  published  during  1568  in  a  large  and 
expensive  form.  But  the  Queen  did  not  heed  a  re- 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  35 

peated  request  for  an  authorization  of  the  publica- 
tion, and  after  revision  and  a  futile  attempt  to  stop 
the  issue  of  all  other  versions  it  was  only  "  Set  foorth 
by  aucthoritie  "  of  the  Southern  Convocation.165  It 
quite  failed  to  win  popular  approval,  and  though  the 
clergy  might  use  it  in  church,  Puritans  soon  had 
their  Genevan  New  Testament  revised  by  Tomson  and 
issued  by  the  Queen's  printer,  while  Catholics  prompt- 
ly followed  it  with  the  Rheims  New  Testament. 
Editions  of  the  Genevan  Bible  poured  forth,  and 
Puritans  began  demanding  copies  without  the  Apoc- 
rypha.166 As  a  consequence  by  1600  there  came  to 
be  great  diversity  of  versions  and  editions. 

Presently  a  concordat  was  arrived  at  in  Great 
Britain  between  Protestants.  James  VI  of  Scotland 
was  annoyed  at  the  notes  in  the  Scotch  Authorized 
Version,  and  when,  at  the  Hampton  Court  Confer- 
ence of  1604,  he  found  that  the  English  Puritans 
equally  disliked  the  Bishops'  Bible,  he  promptly  ac- 
ceded to  their  wish  for  a  new  version.167  Among  the 
conditions  laid  down,  as  recorded  by  Bancroft,  it  was 
ordered  that  it  should  be  made  chiefly  by  university 
scholars,  should  follow  Henry's  order  of  1543  and 
have  no  marginal  notes,  should  be  approved  by  the 
bishops,  the  privy  council,  and  the  King,  and  should 
then  be  authorized  for  church  use.168  Eifty-four 
scholars  were  appointed  by  the  King,  and  forty-seven 
revised  the  Bishops'  Bible  for  four  or  five  years, 
being  directed  to  consult  Tyndale,  Matthew,  Cover- 
dale,  the  Great  Bible,  and  the  Genevan.169  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  were  most  deeply  influenced  by 


36  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  Genevan,  and  by  the  Rheims  New  Testament, 
which  stood  side  by  side  with  the  Bishops'  text  in 
Fulke's  critical  edition.170  The  Douay  Old  Testa- 
ment did  not  have  this  gratuitous  advertisement,  and 
appeared  rather  too  late  to  influence  their  work. 

Their  revision  was  published  in  1611,  two  printers 
putting  on  the  market  nearly  twenty  thousand  copies 
at  once.171  It  instantly  encountered  severe  criticism, 
in  consequence  of  which  it  was  revised  in  1629.172 
The  final  authorized  edition  did  not  appear  till  1638, 
shortly  after  a  reprint  of  the  Douay  Old  Testa- 
ment.173 During  the  civil  wars  and  the  Common- 
wealth fresh  experiments  were  tried,  and  it  is  said 
that  seven  hundred  thousand  Bibles  were  imported 
from  Amsterdam  without  the  Apocrypha.174  But 
though  a  new  version  was  undertaken  by  Henry 
Jessey,  it  was  not  published,  a  committee  of  Parlia- 
ment reporting  that  the  Royal  Version  was  "  the  best 
of  any  in  the  world."  175 

Attention  was  turned  next  to  the  original  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  as  the  Douay  divines  had  professed  them- 
selves ready  to  follow  "  the  true  and  vncorrupted 
Greeke  text."  Walton  in  1657  published  a  fine  crit- 
ical edition  of  the  originals,  many  early  versions, 
and  quotations  from  early  writers.  The  work  went 
on  chiefly  in  England  and  Germany,  though  with 
help  from  the  French  Catholic  Richard  Simon.  In 
1831  Lachmann  broke  with  the  tradition  of  twelve 
centuries,  and  printed  a  new  Greek  Testament 
founded  entirely  on  early  evidence.  To  a  second  edi- 
tion he  added  a  critical  edition  of  the  Vulgate  from 


FIRST   PRIZE   ESSAY  37 

good  early  manuscripts.  Other  scholars  soon  bettered 
his  example,  and  it  is  now  possible  to  buy  a  result- 
ant Greek  Testament,  showing  how  few  are  the  points 
still  in  doubt  among  scholars,  and  how  unimportant 
they  are.176 

In  Hebrew  the  work  has  been  slower  and  less  com- 
plete. The  Jews  had  long  ago  been  more  thorough 
than  the  Council  of  Trent,  had  established  a  standard 
text  and  destroyed  all  others,177  except  that  the  Sa- 
maritans retained  an  early  edition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  Egyptian  Jews  also  read  an  earlier  edition  of 
which  a  few  fragments  have  recently  been  un- 
earthed.178 To  get  behind  the  "  Massoretic  Text " 
the  best  aids  are  the  Greek  versions  edited  by  Ori- 
gen,  and  the  Latin  version  made  by  Jerome — not  the 
standard  Clementine  Vulgate.  But  scholars  are  by 
no  means  agreed  on  the  exact  text  of  what  was  writ- 
ten by  the  authors  of  the  Old  Testament.179 

Meantime  the  public  was  being  prepared  for 
another  revision  by  a  different  chain  of  circum- 
stances.180 The  impulse  came  partly  from  a  demand 
for  Bibles  by  Germans  and  others,  but  chiefly  from 
the  success  of  foreign  missions  and  the  making  of 
many  fresh  versions  for  the  East,181  With  Bible  so- 
cieties in  Great  Britain  and  America,  with  translators 
like  Carey  and  Judson,  Protestants  had  to  answer 
the  old  questions,  Shall  we  use  the  Apocrypha  ?  Shall 
we  have  a  standard  edition  at  home?  If  so,  shall 
it  be  old,  or  a  new  revision  ?  Must  this  standard  be 
taken  as  a  pattern  for  other  versions,  or  may  trans- 
lators go  direct  to  the  originals? 


38  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

After  years  of  popular  debate,  the  British  society 
refused  to  circulate  the  Apocrypha,  and  practically 
adopted  the  canon  advised  by  Jerome.182  The  Amer- 
ican society  declared  in  1836  that  it  would  encour- 
age "  only  such  versions  as  conform  in  the  principle 
of  their  translation  to  the  common  English  ver- 
sion." 183  In  opposition  to  this  decision,  a  new 
society  was  founded  "  to  procure  and  circulate  the 
most  faithful  versions  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  in  all 
languages  throughout  the  world."  184  Similar  move- 
ments took  place  in  Great  Britain,  but  the  more  impor- 
tant actions  were  taken  in  America.  The  old  society 
set  to  work  to  edit  carefully  the  text  of  the  Royal 
Version  and  produce  a  standard  text,  but  after  a  few 
years  found  it  so  unpopular  that  it  was  dropped.185 
The  new  society  enlisted  sixteen  American  and  eight 
British  scholars  of  five  different  churches  to  revise 
the  English  Bible,  and  first  published  portions,  then 
in  1865  a  complete  New  Testament.186 

Private  scholars  were  encouraged  to  print  numer- 
ous editions,  revisions,  and  versions,  but  in  Great 
Britain  Parliament  and  the  Convocation  hung  back 
till  the  appearance  of  the  American  Testament  com- 
pelled action.  In  1870  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury appointed  Committees  which  were  joined  by 
members  of  the  Free  Churches,  and  with  which  new 
American  Committees  interchanged  suggestions,  so 
as  to  make  the  new  revision  both  international  and 
interconfessional.187  The  revised  New  Testament 
appeared  in  1881,  the  Old  in  1885,  when  the  British 
Committee  practically  ceased  work.188  At  the  re- 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  39 

quest  of  the  University  Presses,  which  had  bought 
the  copyright,  small  and  dwindling  Committees  did, 
however,  revise  the  Apocrypha  by  1894,  for  these 
books  still  received  a  qualified  recognition  by  Epis- 
copalians, as  they  do  to-day ;  and  marginal  references 
were  added  by  1898. 189  Despite  repeated  inquiry  it 
became  clear  that  the  precedent  of  1611-29-38 
would  not  be  followed  in  Great  Britain,  consequently 
the  American  Companies  continued  their  work,  and 
in  1901  issued  the  second  revision  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  in  the  same  year  the  whole  Bible  without 
Apocrypha,  but  with  much-improved  editing.190 


IV 

COMPARISON  OF  THE  VERSIONS 

UNDERSTANDING  now  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
versions,  it  is  possible  to  compare  them.  Several 
points  deserve  attention:  Contents;  resources,  com- 
petence, and  honesty  of  the  translators;  accuracy 
and  literary  merit  of  the  modern  editions ;  accessories 
of  the  text.  As  a  result  of  these  tests  it  will  be  fur- 
ther possible  to  estimate  the  worth  of  the  versions, 
and  to  consider  the  claims  put  forth  on  their  behalf. 

CONTENTS. — Catholic  Bibles,  whether  Latin  or 
English,  intermingle  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment used  by  our  Lord  seven  others,  and  have  en- 
larged editions  of  two  more.191  All  these  are  asserted 
on  the  highest  Catholic  authority  to  be  as  valuable 


40  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

as  the  rest,  equally  inspired  by  the  same  Spirit.192 
Now  the  grandson  of  the  author  of  Ecclesiasticus, 
one  of  the  best  of  these  added  books,  drew  a  sharp 
line  between  it  and  the  Scriptures  in  the  prologue 
to  the  Greek  version  that  he  made  of  it;  II  Macca- 
bees professes  to  be  only  a  summary  of  another  man's 
work  (II:  24—33),  while  the  additions  to  Daniel 
and  the  book  of  Judith  are  evidently  fictions  by  au- 
thors ignorant  of  history.193 

Further,  the  Council  of  Trent  ruled  out  certain 
other  books,  read  then  by  many  as  equally  valuable 
with  these.  We  have  noted  that  some  of  the  Popes 
did  not  agree  with  one  another  or  with  themselves 
as  to  the  Apocrypha.194  It  is  evident  that  our  Lord 
used  no  more  than  our  thirty-nine  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.195  His  references  in  Luke  XXIV:  44 
and  XI:  51  even  suggest  to  scholars  that  He  knew 
them  exactly  in  the  form  in  which  they  are  still  cur- 
rent among  the  Jews.196  It  was  of  them  alone  that 
He  said,  "  They  give  testimony  of  Me."  With  them, 
therefore,  we  may  well  be  content ;  "  for  the  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  prophecy." 

RESOURCES  OF  THE  TRANSLATORS. — Jerome  had  a 
few  advantages  in  the  materials  at  his  command.197 
His  Hebrew  manuscripts  were  at  least  five  hundred 
years  older  than  any  we  possess.  He  had  one  written 
by  Origen  before  250  A.D.,  and  he  was  at  least  aware 
of  others  in  the  custody  of  the  Samaritans,  close  at 
hand.  He  knew  Origen's  splendid  collection  of 
Greek  versions,  which  has  come  down  to  us  only  in 
fragments.  He  had  the  Old  Latin  versions  in  manu- 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  41 

scripts,  probably  older  than  any  which  we  still  pos- 
sess. At  the  same  time  his  Greek  copies  of  the  New 
Testament  do  not  seem  to  have  been  remarkable. 

The  Vatican  editors  had  also  in  the  Old  Testament 
the  accumulated  lore  of  generations  of  Jews  who  had 
studied  the  text  microscopically,  besides  possessing 
written  Aramaic  versions.  In  the  New  Testament 
they  had  available  one  of  the  best  manuscripts  of  the 
Greek,  they  used  the  best  manuscript  of  the  Latin, 
and  they  knew  of  the  standard  Syriac  version.  The 
Douay  scholars  were  no  better  off. 

The  Anglo-American  Revisers  were  worse  off  than 
Jerome  for  old  Jewish  manuscripts,  but  had  critical 
texts  based  on  many  more,  gathered  from  all  parts 
and  parties;  besides  several  more  ancient  versions, 
such  as  Syriac,  Samaritan,  Egyptian,  Gothic,  Ar- 
menian, etc.  For  the  New  Testament  they  had  fine 
critical  texts  founded  on  a  wealth  of  material  care- 
fully considered. 

On  the  whole,  the  differences  in  the  matter  of  the 
sources  available  in  390,  1590,  and  1890  are  not  very 
serious.  See  Diagram  2. 

COMPETENCE  OF  THE  TRANSLATORS. — Jerome  was 
perhaps  the  best  Western  scholar  for  fifteen  hundred 
years;  but  he  acknowledged  his  deficiencies  in  He- 
brew, and  always  threw  the  responsibility  for  his  Old 
Testament  work  on  his  teachers.198  Nor  were  the 
Vatican  editors  much  stronger  on  this  side;  though 
Martin  of  Douay  was  in  the  front  rank,  and  Chal- 
loner  was  a  good  scholar.  On  the  other  side,  Cover- 
dale,  although  he  disclaimed  all  Hebrew  scholarship, 


42  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

was  yet  most  painstaking  in  his  work ;  while  even  in 
1526  Tyndale  was  reported  to  be  a  master  of  He- 
brew, Greek,  Latin,  Italian,  Spanish,  English,  and 
French.199  And  since  their  days  the  work  of  the 
Bishops',  the  Authorized,  the  English,  and  the  Amer- 
ican editions  has  brought  into  the  field  scores  of  able 
men,  including  the  best  Hebraists  and  critics  of  the 
English-speaking  world.  So  too  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  each  Catholic 
version  is  due  mainly  to  a  single  man,  such  as 
Jerome,  Martin,  Challoner,  Kenrick,  slightly  checked 
by  others;  while  the  Protestant  versions  are  due 
mainly  to  committees,  among  whom  none  stand  out 
conspicuously.  Since  the  Reformation  the  advan- 
tage has  not  been  with  the  Catholics. 

HONESTY  OF  THE  TRANSLATORS. — Jerome  was  an 
earnest  Christian,  but  at  the  same  time  a  polemical 
theologian,  with  strong  opinions  as  to  the  interpreta- 
tion of  prophetic  passages ;  and  he  allowed  his  polem- 
ics and  his  prejudices  to  warp  his  translation  in  a 
way  that  Catholics  frankly  admit.200  Martin  and 
Challoner  are  honorably  acquitted  of  adding  to  these 
perversions  of  Scripture;133  but  they  accurately  re- 
peat them,  as  the  Rules  of  Pope  Pius  seem  to  require. 

Tyndale  was  vehemently  attacked  for  the  charac- 
ter of  his  work;  but,  setting  aside  his  notes,  his  text 
does  not  seem  wilfully  mistranslated.  The  chief 
objections  taken  were  that  he  rendered  ecclesia  as 
"  congregation,"  rather  than  "  church,"  and  other- 
wise broke  with  tradition;  but  these  renderings  are 
defensible.  Modern  Catholics  do  not  appear  to 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  43 

charge  him  with  deliberate  perversion.  At  a  later 
stage,  Protestants  of  the  seventeenth  century  did  say 
that  "  dogmatic  interests  were  in  some  instances  al- 
lowed to  bias  the  translation "  of  King  James.201 
And  modern  scholars  both  Catholic  and  Protestant 
advert  to  "  dogmatic  erroneous  renderings  "  in  that 
version,  though  they  do  not  accuse  the  revisers  then 
of  intentional  dishonesty.  Of  five  instances  adduced 
by  Kenrick,  all  have  now  been  revised,  and  probably 
only  two  would  now  be  challenged  by  Catholics; 
while  Protestants  would  retort  that  in  these  cases  the 
objection  would  be  due  to  Catholic  misapprehen- 
sion.202 

ACCURACY  OF  THE  MODERN  EDITIONS. — Several 
errors  exist  in  the  modern  Catholic  versions,  trace- 
able to  blunders  of  Jerome.203  On  the  other  hand, 
the  1901  Protestant  version  is  inferior  to  the  Cath- 
olic in  a  few  places ;  though  in  the  judgment  of  the 
writer  these  are  very  few.204 

The  history  of  the  versions  will  explain  many  of 
these  variations.  Jerome  went  over  some  of  his  work 
again  and  again,  especially  the  Psalms,  but  his  final 
revision  was  rejected.  Not  only  was  the  work  of 
1611  brought  to  the  anvil  again  and  again,  it  under- 
went two  further  revisions  after  public  criticism  be- 
fore it  took  shape  in  1638.  Similarly  the  Revisers 
of  1881-85  went  over  their  work  repeatedly,  and 
after  public  criticism  it  was  reconsidered  before  the 
American  edition  of  1901. 

The  Vatican  editors  did  improve  on  Jerome,  but 
not  to  this  extent.  Sixtus  was  aware  of  the  impor- 


44  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

tance  of  consulting  the  earliest  copies  of  the  Vul- 
gate ;  furthermore,  he  had  paved  the  way  for  his  work 
by  his  fine  edition  of  the  Greek  version  and  by  his 
careful  compilation  of  quotations  by  the  early  Fa- 
thers. But  he  did  not  wait  to  insure  that  these  quo- 
tations were  as  the  early  Fathers  had  made  them, 
and  not  distorted  by  subsequent  scribes;  while  he 
overlooked  the  fact  that  at  best  they  could  only  re- 
produce the  earliest  form  of  Jerome's  version,  includ- 
ing all  its  mistakes.  In  appealing  direct  to  the  He- 
brew and  Greek,  Clement  avoided  this  element  of 
error.205 

The  Revisers  of  1881,  after  the  principles  of  using 
early  manuscripts  and  versions  and  quotations  had 
been  well  studied  and  practiced,  combined  both  meth- 
ods. The  Revisers  of  1885  in  England  did  the 
same,  but  attached  greatest  weight  to  the  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic.  In  the  final  revision  of  1901,  all  impor- 
tant variations  of  the  early  versions  are  recorded  in 
the  margin. 

There  are  thus  in  the  two  Bibles  numerous  varia- 
tions, which  rest  upon  differences  in  the  early  au- 
thorities. In  several  of  these  cases  the  Protestant 
margin  still  registers  the  difference ;  though  the  read- 
ing now  followed  in  the  text  coincides  with  that 
always  followed  by  the  Douay  translators.206  In  a 
few  cases  the  Protestant  version  has  silently  adopted 
the  reading  always  preferred  at  Douay ;  207  in  others, 
the  Protestant  margin  acknowledges  that  the  read- 
ing of  the  Catholic  version  is  worth  considering ;  208 
in  still  other  passages,  scholars  do  not  agree  as  to 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  45 

what  is  certainly  the  true  original,  and  there  are 
even  remarkable  readings  unnoticed  by  either  ver- 
sion.209 But  there  are  several  passages  in  which 
Protestant  scholars  are  agreed  that  the  text  of  the 
Clementine  Vulgate  does  not  represent  the  original 
Greek,  and  that,  therefore,  the  Douay  Bible  must  be 
wrong,  while  the  1901  version  is  certainly  right.210 
Two  of  these  may  be  set  forth  for  special  reasons: 

Matthew  XXVII:  35  not  only  records  that  the 
soldiers  divided  the  garments  at  the  cross,  casting 
lots,  but  comments :  "  That  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet,  saying,  '  They 
divided  my  garments  among  them;  and  upon  my 
vesture  they  cast  lots.' '  Now,  this  very  comment 
is  certainly  made  by  John,  at  XIX:  24;  but  it  is 
beyond  doubt  that  it  was  not  made  by  Matthew,  and 
that  it  was  only  imported  here  by  a  blunder.  This 
is  a  case  where  Pope  Sixtus  cut  out  the  intrusive 
words,  and  Pope  Clement  restored  them  in  the  teeth 
of  evidence.211 

I  John  V:  7,  8  in  modern  Catholic  versions  dif- 
fers from  the  American  Revised  Version  not  only 
in  the  division  of  verses,  but  by  the  presence  of  the 
following  bracketed  words :  "  And  there  are  three 
who  give  testimony  [in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  these  three  are 
one;  and  there  are  three  that  give  testimony  on 
earth]  :  the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood,  and 
these  three  are  one."  No  words  corresponding  ex- 
actly to  the  bracketed  passage  are  to  be  found  in  a 
single  one  of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  Greek  manu- 


46  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

scripts  that  contain  the  adjoining  verses.  Any  words 
at  all  like  them  are  found  only  in  four  Greek  manu- 
scripts, all  written  after  the  year  1400,  with  suspi- 
cions of  forgery  in  each  case.212  They  are  never 
quoted  by  any  Greek  writer  till  1215,  even  when 
discussing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  adducing 
texts  to  prove  it.  They  were  unknown  to  the  Chris- 
tians of  Russia,  Georgia,  and  Armenia;  of  Persia, 
Arabia,  and  Syria ;  of  Abyssinia  and  Egypt :  for  the 
numerous  versions  of  these  countries  omitted  them. 
They  are  not  even  found  in  any  Latin  manuscript 
earlier  than  the  seventh  century,  nor  in  any  used  by 
Alcuin  in  800.  While  the  great  mass  of  Latin  manu- 
scripts contain  them,  they  appear  at  first  after 
verse  8,  and  often  as  inserted  by  a  later  writer.  The 
first  express  quotation  is  by  the  Bishop  of  Carthage 
in  484,  in  a  confession  drawn  up  for  a  king  leaning 
to  Unitarianism.  After  that  time  the  words  can 
be  traced  spreading  from  that  district  over  the  Latin- 
speaking  world,  and  changing  into  the  form  and 
position  they  now  assume  in  the  Catholic  version. 
Earlier  allusions,  even  in  that  neighborhood,  only 
imply  a  knowledge  of  verse  8  and  an  application 
of  it  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  while  as  late  as 
Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Pope  Leo  the  words  them- 
selves were  unknown  in  the  Latin  text.  Seventy 
years  ago  Cardinal  Wiseman  discussed  the  passage, 
but  did  not  say  he  believed  it  genuine;  and  in  1862 
Archbishop  Kenrick  loyally  said,  "  Being  read  in  the 
Vulgate,  which  in  all  its  parts  was  sanctioned  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  Catholics  generally  maintain  it," 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY  47 

without  expressing  any  personal  opinion.  Ordinary 
Catholic  editions  insert  the  passage  without  a  shred 
of  warning  that  it  was  not  written  by  the  Apostle. 

LITERARY  MERITS  OF  THE  MODERN  EDITIONS. — 
The  current  Catholic  versions  retain  a  scholarly  uni- 
formity in  rendering,  to  which  the  1901  edition  has 
not  yet  attained.213  They  are,  however,  tamer  in 
their  syntax  than  the  parent  version  of  1582,  a  fault 
charged  against  the  American  revision  also.214  They 
have  also  profited  largely  by  the  sharp  criticism 
of  the  Latinized  English  of  Martin,  and  have  bor- 
rowed most  extensively  from  the  Protestant  ver- 
sions.77' 136  A  good  illustration  may  be  seen  by 
minutely  comparing  a  long  and  varied  passage. 
Luke  I  contains  eighty  verses,  of  preface,  narrative, 
and  canticles.  From  the  version  of  King  James, 
a  modern  Catholic  edition  has  borrowed  ninety-four 
words  and  several  changes  of  order;  in  return  the 
Protestant  edition  of  1901  has  adopted  six  words 
from  Martin  and  five  from  Challoner.  Evidently 
the  literary  merit  of  even  Challoner  is  not  esteemed 
highly  by  Protestants.  For  the  rest,  the  Catholic 
has  one  felicitous  phrase  against  a  clumsy  Protestant 
one,  but  is  open  to  question  seven  times  in  the  oppo- 
site direction.215 

ACCESSORIES  OF  THE  TEXT. — Catholic  authorities 
attach  great  importance  to  supplying  notes.  The 
Rheims  New  Testament  was  annotated  by  Allen  and 
Bristow,  with  comments  as  strong  on  the  Catholic 
side  as  Tyndale's  or  Whittingham's  had  been  on  the 
Protestant.  They  caused  the  utmost  irritation  in 


48  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

England,  both  then  and  when  reprinted  in  1816.  The 
notes  on  the  Old  Testament  were  milder  and  fewer, 
and  were  due  to  Worthington.216  Kings  Henry  and 
James  saw  that  any  such  notes  seriously  hindered 
general  use,  and  forbade  any  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sions, and  the  modern  revisions  have  followed  these 
precedents  on  the  Protestant  side.217  Modern  Catho- 
lic editions,  however,  still  print  some  notes  dealing 
with  debated  theological  points.218 

Other  notes  refer  to  a  doubt  as  to  what  is  the  true 
text.  Thus  at  Genesis  III:  15  an  Irish  Catholic  edi- 
tion acknowledges  that  some  Latin  Fathers  read  ipsa, 
"  She  shall  crush,"  others  ipsum,  meaning  "  The  Seed 
shall  crush."  219  On  the  other  hand,  the  American 
Revisers  of  1901  admit  that  at  Genesis  VI:  3  the 
present  Hebrew  text,  "  strive  with  man,"  differs  from 
the  ancient  Greek,  Latin,  and  Syriac  versions,  which 
give  the  opposite  meaning,  "  abide  in  man."  Where 
any  serious  doubt  exists,  it  is  only  honest  to  warn 
the  reader,  and  both  parties  do  this,  though  with 
more  reserve  by  the  Catholics.  Yet,  as  in  these  in- 
stances, both  often  follow  their  tradition  against  the 
weight  of  evidence. 

Catholic  Bibles  have  continued  the  ancient  prac- 
tice of  furnishing  headnotes  to  the  various  books, 
explaining  their  origin;  and  to  the  chapters,  sum- 
marizing them.  In  the  1901  revision  only  the  chap- 
ters and  pages  receive  similar  headings.  The  Eng- 
lish editions  lack  even  these,  in  reaction  from  the 
headings  of  1611,  which  are  not  always  bare  sum- 
maries, but  often  interpretations  also.  (See  "  Can- 


FIRST   PRIZE  ESSAY  49 

tides  of  Canticles  "  in  the  editions  of  1610,  1611, 
1885,  1901.) 

Modern  Catholic  editions  supply  a  system  of  dat- 
ing. Into  Protestant  versions  another  system  was 
introduced  in  1701  from  the  researches  of  Ussher, 
Protestant  Archbishop  of  Armagh.  The  advance  of 
knowledge  lays  both  systems  open  to  question,  and 
the  omission  of  any  dates  from  the  1901  edition  re- 
moves a  dubious  element. 

Catholic  Bibles  continue  a  good  custom  of  the 
Middle  Ages  in  giving  a  few  marginal  references  to 
illustrative  texts  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  The 
version  of  1611  also  had  a  few,  but  John  Canne,  a 
Baptist  of  the  seventeenth  century,  drew  up  a  very 
large  body,  which  gave  a  great  impulse  to  the  fash- 
ion.220 The  1901  edition  is  well  supplied  with  these 
admirable  helps  to  study,  on  a  far  larger  scale  than 
in  most  Catholic  editions.  But  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  the  variation  between  Catholic  editions  is 
very  marked  in  all  accessories  to  the  text. 

Catholic  Bibles  led  the  way  in  indicating  quota- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  an  exam- 
ple followed  in  1881  and  1901.  But  all  editors 
ignore  the  usual  device  of  inverted  commas,  and  all 
use  italics  in  a  way  that  is  unknown  outside  the 
Bible.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  typographical  tra- 
ditions present  all  Bibles  in  a  style  strange  to  an 
average  reader. 

Catholic  Bibles  contain  with  continuous  paging  an 
historical  index  and  a  table  of  references  on  doctrinal 
points,  approved  by  church  authority.  The  Prot- 


50  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

estant  edition  of  1901  appends  with  fresh  paging 
a  geographical  index  and  atlas,  claiming  no  author- 
ity from  the  Revisers.  Probably  many  people  never 
think  of  these  fine  distinctions,  and  vaguely  attrib- 
ute to  all  the  matter  added  by  editors  and  publish- 
ers an  authority  almost  equal  to  that  of  the  text. 

CLAIMS  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  VERSIONS. 
— To  summarize  the  foregoing  inquiry,  with  special 
reference  to  a  widely  circulated  statement  as  to  the 
usage  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  her  versions: 

The  Catholic  Church  has  for  centuries  prohibited 
her  members,  as  a  rule,  from  reading  the  Scriptures 
in  their  own  tongue,  and  until  lately  special  permis- 
sion was  needed  for  each  person.221 

The  versions  she  does  promulgate  in  countries 
mainly  Catholic  have  often  been  too  expensive  for 
wide  circulation,  though  of  late  a  splendid  reform  has 
taken  place  in  Italy  by  Pope  Leo  XIII.225 

"  The  Authentic  Version  of  God's  Words  as  Au- 
thorized by  the  Church  of  Rome  "  is  in  Latin,45'  10° 
long  obsolete  as  a  spoken  language,  except  in  an  ob- 
scure corner  of  the  Balkans.223 

This  version  did  not  exist  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  no  portion  of  it  is  known  to  have  been  current 
then,  except  the  inscription  on  the  cross.  It  had  un- 
dergone repeated  change  till  1592. 

All  the  Catholic  English  versions  are  based,  not  on 
the  originals,  but  on  this  Latin  version  with  all  its 
initial  defects,  and  with  all  the  further  defects  of  an 
edition  printed  more  than  a  thousand  years  after  its 
execution. 


FIRST  PRIZE  ESSAY  51 

The  chief  Catholic  English  Version  borrowed  free- 
ly from  the  Protestant  versions  at  its  first  transla- 
tion.77- 136 

It  has  undergone  repeated  revision,  and  has  been 
assimilated  more  and  more  to  the  Protestant.77' 136 

The  Protestant  version  was  got  up  for  the  obvious 
reason  that  the  Catholics  were  not  circulating  any  in 
England ;  although  other  nations  had  used  them  for 
years.79-  80>  82 

As  to  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  a  Catholic 
version  contains  the  following  excellent  text :  "  There 
shall  be  safety  where  there  are  many  counselors." 
And  on  Hebrews  VIII:  2  it  gives  the  authorized 
comment :  "  So  great  shall  be  the  light  and  grace  of 
the  new  testament,  that  it  shall  not  be  necessary  to 
inculcate  to  the  faithful  the  belief  and  knowledge 
of  the  true  God,  for  they  shall  all  know  him." 

The  Catholic  and  Protestant  versions  concur  in 
most  points  of  importance.  If  they  took  their  origin 
in  suspicions  of  opposing  parties,  and  the  notes 
showed  this  strongly,  the  text  and  translation  were 
dealt  with  honestly.  Each  has  been  repeatedly  re- 
vised, and  the  modern  editions  are  much  nearer  each 
other  than  those  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  but  Catho- 
lic revisers  may  not  avail  themselves  of  their  own 
scholarship  to  go  behind  the  standard  text  of  the 
Latin  Vulgate  of  1592  or  1861.  Both  editions  are 
freely  annotated,  but  the  Catholic  reader  is  generally 
given  a  little  further  guidance  in  faith  and  morals, 
while  the  Protestant  reader  is  rather  warned  when 
the  rendering  or  text  is  open  to  question.  Either 


52  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

edition,  however,  is  amply  sufficient  to  fulfill  the 
desire  of  one  of  the  latest  and  greatest  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  who  said  of  his  longest  work : 

"  These  are  written  that  you  may  believe 
that  JESUS  is  the  CHRIST  the  Son  of  God; 
and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name." 


LAUS  DEO 


DIAGRAM   i 
SOURCES  OF  THE  VULGATE 

To  illustrate  its  miscellaneous  composition 

Ecclesiasticus  Judith  Wisdom 

I  Maccabees        Psalms  Tobit         2  Maccabees         New 

PartofBaruch  Most  of  the  Old  Testament  Additions    Testament 

HEBREW         HEBREW  \   HEBREW  &  ARAMAIC       ARAMAIC       GREEK       GREEK 


Grt 

:k  LXX 

Greek  LXX    \ 

L 

Gr 

ek  LXX 

Gre 

:k  LXX 

Greek 

\ 

versions 

\ 

of  Aquila,   \ 

Theodo 

tionA 

and  Sym 

ma-    \ 

chus 

1 

Edition  b 

y  o 

rigen>. 

Ok 

Latin 

Old 
vers 

Latin 
ions 

i 

i 

Did  Latin 
ersions 

N 

Old 

Latin 

ver 

iions 

Old  I. 

atin 

versions 

versions 
i  i 

erome's 

Roman 

Old  Latin 

Psalter    Jerome's 

versions 

IGallican 

Psalter 

1  1 

Jerome's      ] 

Jerome's 

version         J          ( 

Jerome's 
version 

Jeron 

ne's 

revision 

• 

1 

II 

versic 

>n 

Ordinary    Bible   of  the   early  Middle  Ages,  varying   in    contents,  order,    and    text 

II 

Edition  by  Alcuin 

standardized   the  order,  and  partly  the  text 

Edition  by  Sixtus,  based  on  early  copies,  checked  bv  early  quotations 


Edition  by  Clement,  based  on  early  copies,  checked   by  originals 


DIAGRAM  2 

EARLY  EDITIONS  AND  VERSIONS   OF 
THE  LAW 

to  illustrate  the  material  available  in  print 
in  1582  for  the  Douay  and  Vulgate  :  ADDITIONAL  IN  1750 

FOR  CHALLONER: 
ADDITIONAL  IN  1900  FOR   THE  REVISERS 


HEBREW     < 
in  care  of 
Samaritans 

YRIAC      Hebrew  in 
1645               1482  •< 
1887 

care  of 
ind  ofter 

Jews 

Hebrew             Gre 
in  care  of             l] 
Christians           I 

ek  Sept 

i 

uagin 
587 

1645, 

'70 

0 

/ 

100 

Aramaic  ol 
Onkelos 
1484 

G 

A< 

'eekof               / 
lull.                   /   J 

r  eek  r 

e    vis 

ion 

/     b 

f   Th  e 

o  dot 

ion 

/ 

Old 

Latin 

zoo 

Greek  of                  1 

1588.  174 

Symmachus 

SAM 

ARIT 

AN 

1                       / 

1645, 

1872- 

Qt 

l<3 

reek  edition    by    Origei 

Gree 

c    edition 

IK 

emnants    in    notes    1887 

by  H 

e  sychius 

JOO 

Aramai 

K* 

EST  EDITION  1873 

/15I9 

(Jerusalem  /  1 
Targum)    / 

1591           /    1 

BOHAIRI  CT 

I7JI,/<S67 

Gree 

<     edition 

/ 

xXLuc 

i  an,  1514 

400 

/           Latin  of     ARMEN  IAN 

/        1  Jerome      1666,  /8jQ 

i 

f             1455,1592, 

MS  dated             / 

1  etc. 

464                      / 

500 

ET 

HIOPIC 

I 

1853 

/ 

CODEX" 

/ 

LUGDUb 

/ 

Syriac  by  Paul 

ENS 

IS  18 

600 

/ 

of  Telia,  1571 

/ 

Part  of  Deut. 

/ 

Editorial 

/ 

work  of 

700 

(Syriac 
revision 

the 
Massoretes 

(  Ashburnham 
Amiatine  and 

(Arabic 
version 

by  Jacob 

S.  Gall  MSS) 

I 

till                MS  only 

in  MS)           at  Paris) 

800 

(Arabic 

still 

in  MS) 

900 

Arabic  of 

Aaro 

n 

avonic 

Sa'adyah 

ben  Asher 

1581 

the  Ga'on 
1546 

Aleppo  MS 

GEO 

IGIAN 

looo  ARABIC  of 

Samue 

ENGLISH  by           1743 

Abu  Sa'id 

ben  Jacob     -ffilfric 

1851-4 

Petersburg    1698 

Bible 

DIAGRAM   3 

SOURCES  OF  THE  RHEIMS 
TESTAMENT 

The  Catholic  English  Version  of  the  Sixteenth  Century 

GREEK  AND  LATIN  TESTAMENTS 

Catholic  and  Protestant  Publications 


ORIGINAL  GREEK 


ERASMUS  1516 
STUN  1C  A  1520 
ERASMUS  1522 


Wyclif  1380 
Purvey  1388 

I 


JEROME  385 


CASTELLANUS  1504 
ERASMUS  1516 

STUNICA  1520 
Luther  1522 


Zwingli  1524 
TyndaU  /PJ.  _^  — |    P AGNINUS  1528  |       STEPHANUS  1528 

TyndaU  1^35  \    ~~ "^^Covtrdale  1535 


Rogers  (Matthew)  1 


Rog, 


Coverdale  1539-41     Taverner  1539 
(Great) 


STEPHANUS  1550 

Parker  (Bishops')  1^8-72 
MONTANUS  1569-72 


Fulti 


i 
Coverdale  fjj8  English-LA  TIN 


STEPHANUS  1538-40 
HE  NT  EN  1547 


KENTEN  REVISED    I57J 


irtin,    Rheims,     1582 


Fulke  iboi 
Fulke  ibl-f 


Antwerp  160x3. 


SECOND  REVISION  1583 
By  Lucas  of  Bruges 

•ALLEN  1592 


Fulke 


lt}33 


Antwerp  1621 
Rouen  1633 
Douay  ?    1738 
Liverpool  1788 
Dublin  1816-18 


New  York  1834 

Bagittr  1841 


DIAGRAM  4 

DIVERGENCE  OF  THE  CURRENT 
CATHOLIC  EDITIONS 

as  set  forth  by  Newman  and  Gigot 
New  Testament  only 


Douay  reprint  1738 
Ion  14^49 

Challoner 


Chal 


Cambridge  revision  1638 
fnalform  of  Royal 
Protestant  Version 
constantly  attracting 


Cambridge  edition  1762 
""-^^^^  Oxford  edition 

MacMahqn  1783 


Murray  1825 


Dolman,  London     Richardson, 
London 


Duffy,  Dublin 


Dunigan,  New  York 


Gigot  does  not  give  facts  for  tracing  the  connection  of  Sadlier's  Bible  of 
New  York,  nor  specify  the  publishers  of  Husenbeth.  Newman  says  only  of 
this  last  that  it  is  British. 

Kenrick's  Testament  has  apparently  not  been  reprinted  since  1862,80 
is  not  indicated. 


DIAGRAM  5 

SOURCES  OF  THE 

AMERICAN  PROTESTANT  VERSION 
OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  1900 

Important  Greek  and  Latin  Testaments  in  margin 
Catholic  and  Protestant  publications 

ORIGINAL  GREEK 

Erasmus  1516 


Stunica  1520 
Erasmus  1522 


Stephanus  1550 
Stephanus 


Tyndale  1525 

Tyndale  1535 

Rogers  (Matthew}  1531 

Cover  dale   (Great)  1538-4.1 


Beza  1565 


Bev>a  1598 


Parker  (Bisbo^ 


Beza  1556 
Whittingham  155? 

Whittingham  (Gene-van}  1560 


)  1568-72 


Beza  1565 


Tomson 


Martin  1582 


Fulkc*s  edition  of  both 

\  I! 

Revi. 


{Arrival  of  Alexandrian  MS  1625} 

rles  Revisi 
Elzevir  1633 


King  James  Revision  i6ll 
M 81625) 
King  Char 

Final    Revision    1638 


Lachmann  1842-50 
Tiscbendorf  1856-59 


American 


Tregellcs  1857-72 
(  Sinaitic  MS  printed  1862) 
Tischendorf  1864-72 
(Alexandrian  MS  autotyped  1865) 
PPestcott  &  Hort  used  by  revisers 
Westcott  &  Hort  published  1881 

t  Anglo-American  Revision  i88l 

Vatican  MS  Photographic  edition  1889  II 

American  Revision 


Bible  Union  Revision 


1854-65 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC 
ENGLISH  AND  THE  AMERICAN  RE- 
VISED  VERSIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY 
BY  GERALD  HAMILTON  BEARD,  PH.D. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC 
ENGLISH  AND  THE  AMERICAN  RE- 
VISED VERSIONS  OF  THE  BIBLE 

CHAPTER    I 
INTRODUCTION.     THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BIBLE 

OUR  Bible  is  a  collection  of  little  books,  as  its 
name  from  the  Latin  form  of  a  Greek  word,  Biblia, 
or  '  little  books/  implies.  In  order  to  reach  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  comparative  merits  of  the  Cath- 
olic and  American  Revised  Versions  of  the  Bible,  it 
will  help  us  if  we  get  hold  of  certain  recognized  facts 
regarding  these  "  little  books,"  to  the  superlative 
worth  of  which,  as  the  Christian  Bible,  all  versions 
are  a  witness. 

1.  WHAT  is  THE  BIBLE  ? 
(1)   Who  Wrote  It? 

The  Bible  was  not  dictated  to  some  one  by  an 
angel  from  heaven,  as  legend  says  the  Koran  was 
dictated ;  nor  was  it  discovered  in  some  secret  place, 
a  golden-leaved  book  engraved  with  mystic  charac- 
ters, as  story  says  the  Book  of  Mormon  was  discov- 
ered. Under  the  providence  and  inspiration  of  God, 

61 


62  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

these  books  that  went  to  make  up  our  Bible  were 
written  by  men  very  like  ourselves.  Most  of  them 
were  men  of  Palestine,  called  Hebrews. 

(2)   The  Old  Testament 

The  Old  Testament  was  written*  in  the  Hebrew 
language,  except  a  few  chapters  which  were  written 
in  Aramaic,  a  language  much  like  the  Hebrew.  Just 
when  all  the  Old  Testament  books  were  written  is 
not  known.  Some  parts  of  the  oldest  books  are  per- 
haps as  ancient  as  the  fourteenth  century  B.C.  ;  the 
latest  come  to  within  a  century  of  Jesus's  lifetime. 
These  books  are  chiefly  historical  narratives,  proph- 
ecies or  sermons,  psalms  and  other  religious  poems. 

(3)  The  New  Testament 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  written  in 
Greek,  though  possibly  one  or  two  of  them  appeared 
first  in  Aramaic.  Jesus  Himself,  so  far  as  we  know, 
wrote  nothing.  But  after  His  death  some  of  His  dis- 
ciples wrote  out  accounts  of  His  life.  Four  of  these 
accounts  are  our  Four  Gospels.  There  were  histories, 
also,  of  the  church  after  Jesus's  resurrection,  with 
stories  of  the  work  of  Apostles  like  Peter  and  Paul. 
One  of  these  histories  is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in 
our  New  Testament.  Other  men,  especially  the 
Apostle  Paul,  wrote  letters  to  the  churches  or  to  in- 
dividual Christians  for  their  guidance;  and  so  we 
have  many  epistles  in  the  New  Testament.  Besides, 
there  is  the  book  of  the  Revelation,  Using  round 


OK    THE 

UNIVERSITY   1 

OF  / 

'SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  63 

numbers  and  somewhat  extreme  limits,  we  may  say 
that  these  New  Testament  books  (except  II  Peter) 
were  written  between  50  and  125  A.D. 


2.  THE  CANON  OF  THE  BIBLE 

In  Bible  study  the  word  '  canon/  meaning  some- 
thing straight,  like  a  rule,  is  used  of  the  approved 
collection  of  biblical  books.  So  that  a  canonical  book 
is  a  book  that  is  straightly  or  approvedly  part  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures.  '  Apocryphal,'  on  the  other 
hand,  a  word  meaning  originally  simply  '  hidden/ 
and  descriptive  of  books  not  used  in  public  worship, 
became  synonymous  with  '  noncanonical '  or  even 
'  spurious.7  There  are  Old  Testament  apocrypha  and 
New  Testament  apocrypha.  The  books  of  Tobit  (or 
Tobias),  Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  and 
I  and  II  Maccabees,  however,  with  some  additions 
to  the  books  of  Esther  and  Daniel,  are  called  by 
Protestants  specifically  "  The  Apocrypha."  By  the 
Koman  Catholic  Church  these  books  are  regarded  as 
fully  canonical. 

How  did  the  several  books  which  constitute  the 
Bible  become  classed  as  canonical,  to  the  exclusion 
of  other  and  noncanonical  books  ?  It  was  a  gradual 
process.  Church  councils  really  did  little  more  than 
record  judgments  already  formed.  The  determining 
factor  was  the  sacred  value  the  Scriptures  were  found 
to  possess,  as  tested  in  actual  use,  by  the  judgment 
of  spiritually  minded  men,1 


64  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


(1)  The  Old  Testament  Canon 

Take  the  Old  Testament  canon  first;  for  that,  of 
course,  was  formed  first.  Among  the  Hebrews,  the 
Law,  consisting  of  the  first  five  or  six  books  of  our 
Old  Testament,  was  for  a  long  time  a  collection  by 
itself,  and  was  always  accorded  the  most  sacred  posi- 
tion among  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  At  the  same  time 
and  later,  the  prophetic  books  were  added,  as  the 
words  of  men  that  spoke  for  God  were  committed  to 
writing.  Much  later,  a  third  class  of  books,  called 
"  The  Other  Writings,"  became  treasured  with  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets.  It  is  true  that  some  of  this 
third  class  of  books  were  received  by  the  Jews  only 
slowly  and  with  hesitation  as  authoritative  Scripture. 
However,  the  whole  collection  was  probably  com- 
pleted before  100  B.C.  ;  and  about  one  hundred  years 
after  Christ  open  discussion  ended  and  the  Old 
Testament  canon  may  be  said  to  have  been  estab- 
lished. 

Yet,  even  then,  among  the  Jews  themselves,  there 
were  two  canons  of  the  Old  Testament.  For,  from 
the  time  of  the  later  writings  just  alluded  to — that 
is,  from  about  175  B.C.  until  the  fall  of  Jerusalem 
in  the  year  TO  A.D. — the  religious  compositions  which 
we  have  noted  above  as  the  Apocrypha,  and  some 
other  books  with  which  we  are  not  now  concerned, 
were  seeking  admittance  to  the  Hebrew  collection  of 
Scriptures.  These  seven  books  and  two  supplements 
were  received  with  favor  by  the  Greek-speaking  Jews 
at  Alexandria.  So  it  came  about  that  they  were  re- 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  65 

ceived  into  the  Septuagint,  which  was  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  current  in  the  time 
of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles.  From  this  they  passed 
into  the  Old  Latin  translation  of  the  Septuagint,  and 
so  into  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
was  the  successor  of  the  Old  Latin.  The  Jews  of 
Palestine,  whose  Bible  was  about  all  that  was  now 
left  to  them  of  the  old  treasures  of  Zion,  held  to  the 
list  completed  a  hundred  years  or  more  before  Christ. 
These  latest  books  they  judged  unworthy  of  highest 
reverence — noncanonical  or  apocryphal. 

(2)   The  New  Testament  Canon 

In  a  way  similar  to  that  in  which  the  Hebrew 
eanon  was  developed,  the  New  Testament  writings 
became  gradually  raised  to  the  high  level  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  in  the  esteem  of  Christian 
worshipers.  Here  there  has  happily  been  agreement 
between  the  Roman  Catholic  and  Protest  ant  Churches. 
Both  recognize  and  use  the  same  twenty-seven 
books  as  "  The  New  Testament  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 

3.  THE  WITNESSES  AS  TO  WHAT  WAS  WRITTEN 

The  originals  of  the  Holy  Scripture  have  all  been 
lost.  They  must  have  been  written,  as  was  the  cus- 
tom, on  rolls,  or  perhaps  leaves,  of  parchment  or 
papyrus — a  paper  made  from  the  Egyptian  reed  of 
that  name ;  and  natural  decay,  or  else  purposeful  de- 
struction, has  done  away  with  them.  The  latter  was 


66  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

sometimes  malicious,  as  in  the  Roman  persecutions 
of  the  Christians;  or  well  meant,  as  with  the  Jews, 
whose  custom  was  to  destroy  a  copy  of  their  Scrip- 
tures as  soon  as  it  became  worn,  so  that  it  might  not 
be  a  source  of  mistakes  in  copying. 

(1)  Manuscripts 

Even  before  destruction  threatened  the  originals, 
and  much  more  since,  the  spread  of  Christianity 
caused  many  copies,  first  of  particular  books  and  then 
of  the  whole  Bible,  to  be  made  in  the  same  languages 
in  which  the  originals  were  written:  Old  Testament 
Hebrew,  and  New  Testament  Greek.  A  common 
name  for  these  copies  in  the  original  language  is 
"  manuscripts."  Other  things  being  equal,  a  manu- 
script copy  of  the  Scriptures  is  the  best  sort  of  wit- 
ness to  what  was  originally  written.  Of  the  oldest 
five  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  now  known  to 
be  in  existence,  excepting  a  few  fragments,  two  were 
probably  written  in  the  fourth  century  A.D.  One  of 
them  is  named  the  "  Vatican  Manuscript,"  because  it 
is  the  property  of  the  Vatican  Library ;  the  other  the 
"  Sinaitic,"  because  it  was  found  in  a  convent  on 
Mount  Sinai.2  The  earliest  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Old 
Testament  extant  was  made  as  late  as  1009  of  our  era.3 

(2)    Versions 

Besides  these  Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts,  peo- 
ples of  other  languages  needed  copies  of  the  Scrip- 
tures in  their  own  tongues.  So  translations  of  the 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  67 

Hebrew  into  Greek,  and  of  both  Hebrew  and  Greek 
into  Syriac,  Latin,  Egyptian,  and  other  languages 
were  made.  These  translations  are  usually  spoken 
of  as  "  versions."  They  are  valuable  as  secondary 
witnesses  to  what  was  originally  written.  If  a  ver- 
sion is  older  than  a  Hebrew  or  Greek  manuscript  of 
the  same  Scripture,  it  becomes  an  even  more  reliable 
witness  than  the  later  copy  of  the  original,  provided 
one  can  be  sure  that  a  retranslation  of  it  would  give 
the  words  of  the  manuscript  from  which  the  version 
was  made.4  But  this  is  seldom  possible,  for  the  lan- 
guage of  the  version  is  often  very  different  in  struc- 
ture from  that  of  the  original  manuscript,  and  most 
of  the  versions  have  undergone  revision  and  amend- 
ment. Besides  the  famous  Septuagint,  or  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  made  by 
different  translators  between  285  B.C.  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  and  which  lives  to-day  in 
the  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  Manuscripts,  there  are  in 
existence  several  early  copies  of  part  of  the  Old 
Latin  version,  or  versions,  first  made  probably  in  the 
second  century;  of  the  Old  Syriac  originating  in 
the  second  or  third  century;  of  the  Egyptian,  Ar- 
menian, and  others. 

(3)   Quotations 

A  third  class  of  witnesses  to  what  the  Bible 
writers  wrote  is  found  in  quotations  from  Scripture 
made  in  the  works  of  early  Christian  teachers,  com- 
monly called  "  the  church  Fathers."  This  evidence, 
which  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  fragmentary,  is 


68  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

corroborative  and  corrective  merely,  and  should  be 
received  with  caution.5 

4.  REGAINING  THE  TRUE  TEXT 

By  "  text "  is  here  meant  the  total  contents  of  any 
copy,  or  group  of  similar  copies,  of  the  Scriptures. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  to  ascertain  what  is 
the  true  text  is  not  without  great  difficulties  as  to 
details,  yet  is  easily  possible  as  to  the  substance  of 
the  truth.  God  has  granted  no  special  providence 
insuring  perfect  accuracy  to  copyists  engaged  in 
reproducing  the  Scriptures.  The  crude  and  some- 
what divergent  forms  of  early  Hebrew  letters,  till 
recent  centuries  without  adequate  vowel  signs, 
and  the  lack  of  spacing  between  letters,  as  if  one 
were  to  write,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created," 
ISTTHBGNNNGGDCRTD ;  unintentional  mistakes 
of  scribes,  as  in  the  omission  of  words  or  the  inclu- 
sion of  some  note  written  in  the  margin,  as  if  it  were 
a  part  of  the  work  itself;  intentional  insertion  of 
additions  for  supposed  completeness;  abbreviations 
for  the  economizing  of  space;  a  more  or  less  feeble 
appreciation  of  the  worth  of  literal  exactness  in  copy- 
ing— these  and  other  causes  have  given  rise  to  dif- 
ferences among  the  manuscripts  and  versions  of  the 
Bible  numbering,  in  all,  many  thousands.6 

(1)  The  Text  of  the  Old  Testament 

In  the  Old  Testament  text  there  are  far  fewer 
variations  among  existing  manuscripts  than  in  the 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  69 

New ;  yet  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  more 
reliable,  for  there  is  a  difference  important  to  remem- 
ber between  the  two.  In  the  case  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, two  or  more  types,  or  varieties,  of  its  text  were 
in  circulation  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 
One  of  these,  though  far  from  perfect,  became  pre- 
dominant in  the  second  century  A.D.  ;  and,  taking  the 
name  "  Massoretic  "  from  the  Massoretes — Hebrew 
guardians  of  the  Massorah,  or  Hebrew  tradition — 
finally  became  the  authoritative  text.  Later  this  was 
known  as  the  "Received  Text"  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. All  extant  Hebrew  manuscripts  of  the  entire 
Old  Testament,  so  far  as  is  known,  are  of  this  type. 
The  Hebrew  text  from  which  the  Septuagint  transla- 
tion came  was  of  another  sort.  But  this  and  other 
documents  by  which  this  received  Hebrew  text  might 
be  tested  and  corrected  are  often  imperfect  and  mutu- 
ally contradictory.  In  the  case  of  the  Old  Testament, 
therefore,  we  are  left  with  a  substantially  uniform 
but  little  corrected  text. 

(2)  The  Text  of  the  New  Testament 

In  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  there  are  sev- 
eral differing  texts,  and  many  different  manuscripts 
and  versions  to  correct  or  corroborate  one  another. 
These,  according  to  Hort's  classification,  which  is 
accepted  essentially  by  most  biblical  scholars,  are 
arranged  in  four  groups.7  Each  group  represents  a 
distinctive  type  of  manuscript.  For  reasons  that 
need  not  here  concern  us,  these  groups  are  named: 


70  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(a)  Antiochian,  or  Syrian,  (&)  Western,  (c)  Alex- 
andrian, (d)  Neutral. 

We  are  interested  in  these  groups  because  the  tra- 
ditional, or  so-called  "  Eeceived  Text,"  which  the 
King  James's  and  most  earlier  English  New  Testa- 
ment translators  followed,  belongs  to  the  Antiochian 
group ;  the  Old  Latin  and  the  Vulgate,  on  which  the 
Roman  Catholic  Douay  Version  is  based,  belong  to 
the  Western  group;  and  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic 
Manuscripts,  on  which  the  English  and  American 
Revisers  depended  more  than  on  any  other  source 
for  their  version  of  the  New  Testament,  are  of  the 
Neutral  group.  Two  or  three  facts,  therefore,  we 
must  be  patient  enough  to  master. 

In  the  making  of  copies  of  the  Scriptures  the  four 
groups  branched  off  from  each  other  quite  soon  after 
the  first  century  (see  Diagram  2),  some  departing 
farther,  some  less  far,  from  the  first  manuscripts  as 
originally  written. 

(a)  The  Antiochian  group  is  characterized  chiefly 
by  combinations  of  words  that  appear  in  two  or  more 
of  the  other  groups.  A  simple  illustration  of  this  is 
in  Luke  XXIV:  53.  After  the  words,  "And  they 
were  continually  in  the  temple,"  come,  in  the  Neu- 
tral group  of  manuscripts,  the  words  "  blessing 
God  "  ;  in  the  Western  group,  "  praising  God  "  ;  but 
in  the  Antiochian  group,  "  praising  and  blessing 
God."  That  the  combination  is  later  than  either  of 
the  two  parts  that  enter  into  it  is  almost  certain.8 
The  conclusion  from  this  and  other  facts  is  that  the 
Antiochian  is  a  later  and  less  reliable  form  of  the 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  71 

Scripture  text.  In  following  the  received  Greek  text, 
however,  our  earlier  English  versions  followed  this 
text. 

(b)  The  Western  group  is  an  early  offshoot  of  the 
original  writings.     The  Syriac  and  the  Old  Latin, 
which  is  the  basis  of  the  Vulgate  mentioned  above, 
both  belong  to  it.     In  all  three,  excepting  one  copy 
of  the  Syriac,  a  chief  characteristic,  unfortunately,  is 
a  free  amplification  of  the  text,  passages  of  greater 
or  less  length  being  inserted  without  apparent  right. 
The  Western  group  shows  also  some  omissions.     In 
following  the  Vulgate  one  is  likely  to  follow  this  text 
to  a  large  extent. 

(c)  The  Alexandrian  group  is  found  principally 
in  the  writings  of  the  church  Fathers,  and  may  here 
be  passed  by. 

(d)  The  Neutral  group  is  so  named  because,  for 
the  most  part,  it  is  without  the  peculiarities  notice- 
able in  each  of  the  other  groups.     It  is  held,  there- 
fore, to  be  the  nearest  to  the  original  text,  now  lost. 
Its  chief  representatives  are  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic 
Manuscripts.     Our  English  and  American  Revised 
Versions  depended  largely  on  these  manuscripts,  and 
so  usually  followed  the  Neutral  Text.9 

The  result  of  all  this,  though  less  in  uniformity 
than  is  the  case  with  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament, 
is  far  more  in  assurance  of  what  was  originally  writ- 
ten. It  is  easy  to  exaggerate  the  consequences  of  the 
difficulties  mentioned.  No  other  ancient  classic  com- 
pares with  the  Bible  in  the  number  of  manuscript 
copies  and  translations  in  which  it  has  been  pre- 


72  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

served.  Of  no  other  is  the  antiquity  of  extant  copies 
so  great.  No  other  has  had  a  hundredth  part  of  the 
care  bestowed  on  its  transmission  that  has  been  given 
to  the  Bible.  And,  consequently,  as  has  been  esti- 
mated, important  variations  affect  scarcely  more  than 
a  thousandth  part  of  the  whole  New  Testament; 
while  none  of  these  discredits  a  single  one  of  the 
great  truths  of  the  gospel.  We  may  conclude,  there- 
fore, with  the  very  careful  and  reliable  editors  of  the 
biblical  text,  Westcott  and  Hort,  that  "the  books 
of  the  New  Testament  [and,  in  a  much  less  com- 
plete sense,  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  also],  as 
preserved  in  extant  documents,  speak  to  us  in  every 
important  respect  in  language  identical  with  that  in 
which  they  spoke  to  those  for  whom  they  were  orig- 
inally written."  10 


CHAPTEK   II 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  VERSION  OF  THE 
BIBLE  AUTHORIZED  BY  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH 

HAVING  learned  something  of  the  history  of  the 
Bible,  its  origin  and  transmission  in  the  early  times, 
we  wish  now  to  set  clearly  in  order  the  main  facts 
regarding  the  English  version  of  the  Bible  approved 
by  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

1.  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  AUTHORIZATION 

Accurately  speaking,  the  Catholic  Church  has  given 
formal  authorization  to  no  English  version  of  the 
Bible.  Still  less  has  it  given  approval  to  any  one 
English  version  exclusively.  The  authority  of  the 
Douay  Version,  into  the  history  of  which  we  must 
soon  inquire,  is  that  of  certain  Roman  Catholic  cler- 
gymen of  the  College  of  Douay,  "  confirmed  by  the 
subsequent  indirect  recognition  of  English,  Scotch, 
and  Irish  bishops,"  and  by  its  long  use  among  Eng- 
lish-speaking Catholics.11  Similarly,  the  several 
"  editions  "  of  the  Douay  Bible,  which  have  been  so 
far  revised  through  comparison  with  other  English 
versions  as  to  be  very  different  from  the  original 
Douay,  have  received  no  expressed  authorization  from 
the  Holy  See.12  They  come  before  us  usually  with 

73 


74  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  approval  of  some  archbishop.  Both  the  Douay 
Version  proper,  however,  and  those  of  the  modern 
Catholic  versions  that  are  in  general  use,  are  based 
primarily  on  the  Latin  Vulgate.  We  wish,  therefore, 
to  learn,  in  simple  but  accurate  fashion,  the  chief 
facts  about  that  famous  work. 

2.  ORIGIN  OF  THE  LATIN  VULGATE 
(1)  The  Old  Latin 

"  Vulgate,"  from  the  Latin  Vulgata  Editio,  mean- 
ing '  the  Current  Version/  is  a  name  originally  ap- 
plied to  the  Greek  Septuagint  and  then  to  the  Old 
Latin  translation  of  the  same,  but  given  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  to  the  Latin  version  of  the  Bible  made 
by  the  famous  Christian  scholar,  Eusebius  Sophro- 
nius  Hieronymus,  more  commonly  known  as  Jerome. 
Jerome  was  a  Dalmatian,  born  about  340  A.D.  After 
a  life  devoted  to  Bible  study,  he  died  at  Bethlehem 
in  the  year  420.  He  came  to  make  his  translation 
and  revision  of  the  Bible  in  this  way.  In  his  time 
there  existed  the  Latin  version  just  alluded  to,  now 
called  the  "  Old  Latin  "  to  distinguish  it  from  Je- 


Version was  that  described  above  as  the  "  Western 
Text."  Its  Old  Testament  text  was  that  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint. As  a  translation  it  was  crude  and  literal; 
yet,  in  its  original  purity,  faithful  to  the  Greek.  Just 
where  it  was  made,  or  by  whom,  no  one  knows.  Its 
date  is  the  second  century,  or  at  latest  the  middle  of 
the  third  century  A.D.13 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  75 

(2)  Jerome's  Revision 

It  was  this  Old  Latin  Bible  that  Jerome,  at  the 
request  of  Pope  Damasus  of  Rome,  in  the  year  382, 
first  undertook  to  revise.  There  was  much  need  of 
this  revision,  for  the  version  had  become  much  cor- 
rupted.14 Jerome  was  easily  the  first  biblical  scholar 
of  his  day;  and,  although  his  facilities  were,  of 
course,  very  limited  in  comparison  with  those  of 
modern  scholars,  he  was  excellently  fitted  for  his 
task.15 

He  began  with  the  Gospels.  These  he  revised 
with  care ;  though  correcting,  he  tells  us,  "  only  those 
passages  in  which  the  sense  had  suffered  marked 
change,"  so  that  his  version  might  not  differ  too  much 
from  the  customary  one.  The  rest  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament he  revised  but  cursorily.  This  work,  both 
good  and  poor,  became  the  Vulgate  New  Testa- 
ment.16 After  revising  apparently  the  whole  Latin 
Old  Testament,  Jerome  made  a  second  revision  of 
the  Psalms.  This  was  the  more  carefully  executed 
of  the  two,  through  comparison  with  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Septuagint  Greek.  Yet  both  his  exemplar  and 
the  copy  he  worked  on  were  faulty,  and  his  revision 
lacked  the  degree  of  accuracy  reached  in  his  own  still 
later  translation  of  the  Psalms  made  direct  from  the 
Hebrew.  His  second  revision,  however,  was  the  one 
that  passed  into  the  Vulgate.  It  was,  therefore,  a 
Latin  translation  of  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Hebrew. 


76  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(3)  Jerome  s  Original  Translation 

Jerome's  last  and  greatest  work  was  a  translation 
of  the  whole  Old  Testament  direct  from  the  Hebrew. 
In  compliance  with  the  wish  of  his  bishop,  though 
against  his  own  judgment,  he  translated  also  two 
books  of  the  Apocrypha,  Tobit  and  Judith,  which  a 
friend  had  previously  turned  into  Hebrew  from  the 
Aramaic.17  All  of  this  original  translation,  except 
the  book  of  Psalms,  was  used  in  the  Vulgate;  and, 
in  addition,  from  the  Old  Latin  and  Septuagint,  the 
other  five  books  of  the  Apocrypha  and  two  supple- 
ments, all  of  which  Jerome  refused  to  revise.  His 
work  on  the  two  apocryphal  books  and  some  others  was 
done  in  haste ;  but  to  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole 
Jerome  gave  much  more  care,  spending  nearly  fifteen 
years  on  its  translation.  It  cost  him  a  storm  of 
denunciation  because,  leaving  the  Septuagint  and  Old 
Latin,  he  had  translated  directly  from  the  Hebrew.18 

3.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  VULGATE 
(1)  From  Jerome  to  the  Council  of  Trent 

This  Latin  Bible  of  Jerome's  gradually  supplanted 
the  Old  Latin  and  the  Greek  Septuagint  in  the  use 
of  the  Western  churches.  Circulating  until  the  ninth 
century  side  by  side  with  the  Old  Latin,  the  two  were 
often  mixed  in  the  making  of  new  copies.  All  the 
causes  which  we  have  already  noted  as  tending  to 
corrupt  written  copies  of  the  Bible,  were  at  work  in 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  77 

this  case.  Its  history  is  therefore  one  of  constant 
deterioration  and  attempted  revision.19  When  print- 
ing came  in,  Latin  manuscripts  were  chosen  for  print- 
ing without  regard  to  their  accuracy,  and  some  sixty 
early  editions  served  to  spread  their  variations  and 
corruptions.  During  the  sixteenth  century  repeated 
attempts  to  revise  the  printed  Vulgate  were  made.20 

(2)   The  Council  of  Trent 

At  last  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  1545,  after  much 
dehate,  declared :  "  The  same  old  and  Vulgate  [or 
current]  edition,  which  has  been  approved  by  long 
use  for  so  many  ages  in  the  church  itself,  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  authentic  in  public  readings,  controversies, 
discourses,  and  expositions,  and  nobody  may  dare  or 
presume  to  reject  it  on  any  pretense."  21 

The  name  "  Latin  Vulgate,"  therefore,  now  stands 
for: 

(a)  The  Old  Testament,  except  the  Psalms,  trans- 
lated into  Latin  from  the  Hebrew  by  Jerome. 

(&)  The  Psalms  in  the  Old  Latin  translation  of 
the  Septuagint  Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  com- 
pared with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  and  revised  by 
Jerome. 

(c)  The  apocryphal  books  of  Judith  and  Tobit, 
translated    into    Hebrew   from    the    Aramaic   by    a 
friend,  and  hastily  translated  from  the  Hebrew  into 
Latin  by  Jerome. 

(d)  The  apocryphal  books  of  Wisdom,  Ecclesias- 
ticus,  I  and  II  Maccabees,  and  Baruch,  with  addi- 


78  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

tions  to  Daniel  and  Esther,  from  the  Old  Latin 
unrevised. 

(e)  The  Gospels  in  the  Old  Latin  translation  of 
the  original  Greek,  compared  with  the  Greek  and 
carefully  revised  by  Jerome. 

(/)  The  rest  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Old 
Latin,  cursorily  revised  by  Jerome.  (See  Dia- 
gram 4.) 

The  meaning  of  this  decision  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  has  been  disputed.  A  reasonable  Catholic  view 
is  that  it  did  not  condemn  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
text,  nor  declare  the  Vulgate  the  best  possible  trans- 
lation, still  less  faultless;  but  that,  for  the  sake  of 
unity  and  authority,  it  chose  the  Vulgate  as  best 
among  Latin  translations,  and  authorized  it  as  the 
only  version  to  be  used  in  public  worship,  preaching, 
and  controversies.22 

(3)  The  Sixtine  and  Clementine  Editions 

Curiously  enough,  although  the  chief  confusion 
had  been  caused  by  different  editions  of  this  one  Vul- 
gate version,  the  Council  of  Trent  adjourned  without 
stamping  any  particular  edition  with  its  approval. 
This  matter  was  committed  to  the  Pope.  After  much 
delay,  Pope  Sixtus  V,  in  1587,  appointed  a  number 
of  scholars  to  revise  the  Vulgate  text.  He  ventured 
to  revise  their  revision  in  arbitrary  fashion,  follow- 
ing chiefly  the  epoch-making  but  faulty  edition  of 
Robertus  Stephanus  issued  in  1538-40.  Sixtus's 
judgment  as  against  theirs  was  usually  wrong.  Yet, 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  79 

on  the  basis  of  it,  he  issued  his  famous  Bull  declar- 
ing that  his  edition  was  "  to  be  received  and  held  as 
true,  lawful,  authentic,  and  unquestionable  " ;  adding 
after  the  word  "  public  "  in  the  phrase  of  the  decree 
of  Trent  the  words  "  and  private  " ;  forbidding  any 
least  unauthorized  deviations  in  future  editions  from 
the  readings  he  had  adopted;  and  pronouncing  ex- 
communication against  any  who  should  disobey.23 

But  Sixtus  died  in  1590,  and  his  enemies  allowed 
his  decree  the  burial  of  neglect,  and  suppressed  his 
edition  of  the  Bible.  In  1592,  under  Pope  Clement 
VIII,  a  new  edition,  hastily  revised  and  differing  in 
some  thousands  of  places  from  the  Sixtine  edition, 
was  published.24  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the 
Roman  Catholic  hierarchy  met  the  dilemma  in  which 
it  found  itself,  through  setting  aside  a  Pope's  infal- 
lible decisions.  They  called  their  new  edition  by  the 
old  name  "  Sixtine,"  and  issued  an  explanation  by 
Bellarmine,  a  Roman  Catholic  cardinal,  that  not  a 
few  errors  had  crept  into  the  former  (the  true  Six- 
tine)  edition  "  through  the  carelessness  of  the  print- 
ers " ;  while  Bellarmine's  preface  added  that  Sixtus 
himself  had  meant  to  recall  and  amend  his  edition — 
for  which,  unfortunately,  there  is  no  evidence.  At 
the  same  time,  the  public  was  informed  that  some 
readings,  although  wrong,  had  been  allowed  to  stand 
in  the  new  revised  edition,  in  order  to  avoid  popular 
offense.25  This  Clementine  Vulgate  in  its  final  edi- 
tion (1598)  became  the  authorized  edition  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  With  many  minor  correc- 
tions, introduced  without  authority,  it  is  to-day  the 


80  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

standard  but  imperfect  text  for  all  Catholic  versions 
of  the  Scriptures,  from  which,  according  to  a  Bull 
of  Clement,  none  have  a  right  to  vary.26 

4.  THE  WORTH  OF  THE  VULGATE 
(1)  Its  Canon 

In  forming  a  just  estimate  of  the  comparative 
worth  of  the  Vulgate  Version  of  the  Bible,  one  must 
take  into  account  the  validity  of  its  Old  Testament 
canon.  In  other  words,  ought  these  seven  books 
which  Protestants  term  the  Apocrypha  to  be  treated 
as  canonical  and  published  without  discrimination 
from  other  Old  Testament  books,  as  is  the  case  in  all 
Catholic  versions  of  the  Scripture  ?  As  part  of  the 
Vulgate  these  books  were  declared  canonical  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  enumerates  forty-six  books 
and  ends  with  this  interesting  proposition :  "  Now, 
if  anyone  receive  not  as  sacred  and  canonical  the 
said  books  entire  with  all  their  parts,  ...  as  they 
are  contained  in  the  Old  Latin  Vulgate  edition,  .  .  . 
let  him  be  anathema."  27 

Some  reasons  for  dissenting  from  this  decision  of 
the  Council  of  Trent  are  evident :  The  Hebrew  Bible 
excluded  all  these  seven  books,  and  in  this  matter 
its  authority  is  better  than  that  of  the  Septuagint. 
Different  copies  of  the  Septuagint  contain  different 
ones  of  these  seven,  showing  a  doubt  regarding  them 
when  there  was  no  doubt  about  the  twenty-four  He- 
brew books  which  are  equivalent  to  our  thirty-nine. 
The  Septuagint  contained  other  books  besides  the 


SECOND   PRIZE  ESSAY  81 

canonical  books  and  these  seven;  and  these  others 
the  Catholic  Church  itself  regards  as  apocryphal.28 
An  argument  from  such  a  list,  therefore,  proves  noth- 
ing, or  it  proves  too  much.  Moreover,  it  is  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  not  the  Septuagint,  that  Catholics 
themselves  read  in  the  Old  Testament  Latin  Vul- 
gate, excepting  the  Psalms  and  the  Apocrypha.  (See 
Note  18.) 

The  New  Testament  writers,  however  familiar 
with  these  apocryphal  works,  never  quote  from  them. 
The  testimony  of  the  church  Fathers  to  the  Apoc- 
rypha is  neither  unanimous  nor  decisive ;  while  their 
quotations  from  other  writings  admittedly  apocry- 
phal, as  if  they  too  were  Scripture,  show  that  an 
argument  built  on  the  Fathers'  reference  to  some  of 
these  seven  as  Scripture  again  proves  nothing,  or 
too  much  for  the  purpose.29  After  the  third  century 
the  testimony  of  Christian  scholars,  including  Je- 
rome himself,  is  strong  against  treating  these  addi- 
tions as  integral  parts  of  the  Bible.30  To  justify 
decisions  of  Catholic  Councils  by  an  assertion  of 
church  unanimity  in  their  favor,  while  ruling  out 
as  merely  private  opinion  the  mature  judgment  of 
representative  members  of  that  church,  is  to  argue 
in  a  circle.31  The  Council  of  Trent  itself,  while 
styling  these  books  "  sacred  and  canonical,"  yet,  in 
recognition  of  strong  Catholic  opinion  against  them, 
left  open  the  question  of  a  distinction  among  the 
sacred  books.32 

The  truth  seems  to  lie  between  the  extremes  of 
both  Catholic  and  Protestant  opinion.  The  intense 


82  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

antagonism  of  the  first  Protestants  toward  the  Apoc- 
rypha— an  antagonism  which  itself  attached  a  base 
meaning  to  that  name,  and  was  born  of  opposition  to 
all  that  was  Roman  Catholic — cannot  now  be  justi- 
fied. Nor  can  the  view  held  by  many,  of  a  wide 
difference  in  kind  as  well  as  degree  of  worth,  exist- 
ing between  all  canonical  books  on  the  one  hand,  and 
all  noncanonical  books  on  the  other,  be  maintained 
at  the  bar  of  history.  Between  the  sacredness  and 
inspiration  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement,  for  ex- 
ample, which,  it  has  been  said,  "  was  within  an  inch 
of  getting  in"  to  the  Bible,  and  that  of  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  which  was  within  an  inch  of  being 
left  out  of  the  Bible,  no  broad  chasm  can  be  truly 
said  to  have  existed.  Eor  all  that,  one  need  appeal 
to  none  but  Catholics  to  show  that,  in  the  judgment 
of  Christians  of  acknowledged  weight,  both  the  liter- 
ary and  religious  character  of  these  seven  apocryphal 
books  on  the  whole,  and  their  history  in  the  church, 
condemn  as  unjustifiable  and  misleading  the  practice 
of  publishing  them  in  the  Old  Testament  volume 
without  any  sign  of  discrimination.33  The  sugges- 
tion of  Jerome  that  these  apocryphal  books  be  read 
for  moral  instruction  and  edification — a  suggestion 
adopted  by  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  repeated  in 
Article  VI  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  advanced 
by  the  Protestant  practice  of  publishing  them,  either 
in  a  group  by  themselves  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  or  separately — accords  better  with  the 
demands  of  religion,  history,  and  sound  educational 
methods  than  either  of  these  extremes.  The  practice 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  83 

of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  printing  at  the 
end  of  the  Vulgate  the  three  books,  III  and  IV 
Esdras  and  The  Prayer  of  Manasses,  as  apocryphal 
but  worthy  of  Christian  perusal,  corresponds  to  this 
precisely.34 

(2)  Its  Text,  Translation  and  Transmission 

Besides  this  matter  of  its  amplified  canon,  the 
question  of  the  reliability  of  this  Vulgate  Latin  Ver- 
sion, which  was  destined  to  play  so  large  a  part  in 
the  subsequent  Catholic  English  versions,  still  re- 
mains. It  has  been  shown  already  that  the  Vulgate 
was  partly  Jerome's  translation  of  the  Hebrew  and 
partly  the  Old  Latin  Version,  revised  or  unrevised. 
The  Hebrew  from  which  Jerome  translated  was  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  that  which  we  know  as  the 
"  Received  Text."  Jerome  had,  however,  only  the 
"  unpointed  "  text — that  is,  consonants  without  the 
signs  that  later  stood  for  vowels ;  and  popular  preju- 
dice in  favor  of  the  Septuagint  led  him  to  vary  some- 
what from  the  Hebrew.35  The  Old  Latin  Version 
which  he  used  in  the  Psalms  was,  we  have  seen,  itself 
a  faulty  translation  of  the  Septuagint,  which  repre- 
sents quite  another  type  of  Hebrew  text.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  Vulgate  was  a  literal  translation  of 
the  Western  Greek  text,  marked  by  numerous  inter- 
polations and  some  serious  omissions.36 

What  did  Jerome  do  with  this  material?  His 
translation  is  learned,  graceful,  and  intends  to  be 
faithful.  It  gave  to  English  Christianity  a  large 


84  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

number  of  its  most  distinctive  religious  and  theolog- 
ical words.37  At  the  same  time,  its  servility  in 
reproducing  the  forms  of  Greek  words  and  phrases 
without  translating  them  has  had  a  baneful  influ- 
ence, as  is  seen  in  the  English  versions  based  on  it. 
Some  of  its  renderings  are  so  free  as  to  be  inaccu- 
rate.38 Jerome  not  infrequently  mistakes  the  mean- 
ing of  a  passage,  and  sometimes  gives  translations 
that  suffer  from  doctrinal  bias.39  In  estimating  the 
worth  of  the  Vulgate  it  is  always  to  be  borne  in 
mind,  too,  that,  other  things  being  equal,  a  transla- 
tion of  the  language  in  which  a  document  was  first 
written  is  never  as  reliable  as  a  copy  in  that  original 
language  itself ;  still  less  is  a  translation  of  a  transla- 
tion. The  Old  Latin  translation  from  which  the  Vul- 
gate New  Testament  comes  seldom  meets  the  test  of 
superiority  that  otherwise  might  belong  to  its  origin 
in  the  second  century,  by  showing  certainly  what 
was  the  Greek  text  at  that  time.  Corruptions  in  the 
Vulgate  itself,  also,  of  which  the  present-day  copies 
show  many,  some  of  them  serious,  must  be  taken  into 
account.  These  corruptions  have  extended  over  cen- 
turies of  transmission  with  but  partial  revisions.  In 
such  a  case  the  only  hope  of  near  approach  to  what 
was  originally  written  is  through  severely  careful 
study  and  impartial  treatment  of  the  text. 

(3)  Worth,  Not  Infallibility 

While,  then,  the  worth  of  the  Vulgate  in  some  re- 
spects is  considerable,  the  reader  may  be  sure  that  it 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  85 

has  no  just  claim  to  preeminent  superiority.  He  may 
be  sure  that  no  copy  of  the  Vulgate  in  existence  is 
possessed  of  such  faultless  accuracy  as  to  justify  its 
being  called  "  the  authentic  version  of  God's  words," 
bearing  "  all  the  evidences  of  infallible  certitude." 
He  may  be  sure  that  no  copy  has  "  come  down  to  us 
unchanged  from  the  time  of  Christ  himself."  40  If 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts  are  themselves 
not  without  error,  much  less  is  this  Latin  transla- 
tion infallible.  Indeed,  one  cannot  wonder  that  the 
French  Catholic  historian  Richard  Simon  should 
wish  to  assert  that  "  the  [Roman  Catholic]  Church 
does  not  pretend  that  these  translations  are  either 
infallible  in  all  their  parts  or  that  nothing  more 
correct  can  be  had." 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   CATHOLIC  VEESIOIT 
(CONCLUDED) 

1.  THE  DOUAY  VEESION 
(1)  Its  Origin 

THE  sixteenth  century  witnessed  in  England  a  re- 
markable activity  in  the  translating  of  the  Bible  into 
the  English  language.  The  English  people,  stirred 
anew  by  the  spirit  of  the  Renaissance  and  the  Ref- 
ormation, were  eager  to  the  point  of  excitement  for 
the  privilege  of  reading  it.  In  chary  response  to 
their  insistent  demand,  with  which  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics themselves  had  little  sympathy,  and  as  a  meas- 
ure of  protection  from  what  they  regarded  as  the 
dangerous  heresies  of  the  Protestant  English  versions 
with  their  doctrinal  annotations,  Catholic  ecclesias- 
tics undertook  their  own  translation  of  the  Bible 
into  English.41 

In  Elizabeth's  reign  many  of  them  were  virtually 
exiles,  as  the  Protestants  had  been  before  them.  One 
of  these  exiles,  William  Allen,  an  able  scholar,  in 
1568  established  an  English  college  at  Douay,  Flan- 
ders. It  was  he,  with  several  associates,  who  set  on 
foot  the  English  Version  afterward  known  as  the 
"  Douay."  In  1582,  during  a  temporary  removal  of 

86 


SECOND  PRIZE   ESSAY  87 

the  College  to  Rheinas,  the  Xew  Testament  was  first 
published ;  and  is,  therefore,  often  called  the  "  Rhem- 
ish  Version."  The  Old  Testament,  delayed  for  lack 
of  funds,  was  issued  in  1609-10,  after  the  College 
had  returned  to  Douay.  The  chief  translator  of  both 
Testaments  was  Gregory  Martin,  of  Oxford,  "  an  ex- 
cellent linguist,  exactly  read  and  versed  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures."  42 

(2)  Its  Sources 

For  the  text  to  be  translated,  these  English  trans- 
lators not  unnaturally  turned  to  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
The  Vulgate,  besides  being  approved  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  had  long  been  the  Bible  of  Catholic  Eng- 
land. When  their  work  was  first  done  the  standard 
Clementine  edition  had  not  yet  appeared,  but  they 
revised  their  version  in  partial  conformity  with  it 
later.43  They  had  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  before 
them,  but  were  influenced  by  them  only  in  minor 
matters.44  They  made  some  use,  too,  of  the  Ge- 
nevan and  other  English  versions.45 

(3)  Its  Translation 

The  Douay  was,  in  the  main,  a  faithful  version 
of  the  Vulgate,  and  uniform  in  its  renderings.  So 
good  a  judge  as  Scrivener  has  said  that  "  no  case  of 
wilful  perversion  of  Scripture  has  ever  been  brought 
home  to  the  Rhfemish  translators."  46  Yet  occasion- 
ally in  their  translation,  and  much  more,  of  course, 
in  their  ^otes,  one  finds  the  same  controversial 


88  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

wording  which  in  some  cases  marked  the  Calvinists' 
Genevan  Version.47  The  Douay's  chief  fault,  how- 
ever, is  its  blind  English.  Whether  because  the 
men  engaged  in  the  work  were  scholastics  only,  and, 
lacking  that  "  touch  of  nature  which  makes  the 
whole  world  kin,"  imagined  that  a  repetition  of  for- 
eign words  could  give  the  true  "  sense  of  the  Holy 
Ghost "  better  than  simple  idiomatic  English,  or  for 
some  other  reason,  it  is  the  testimony  of  unpreju- 
diced Catholic  scholars  that  much  of  their  transla- 
tion was  harsh  and  obscure.48  A  chief  cause  of  this 
obscurity  lay  in  the  extreme  literalism  of  the  trans- 
lation— of  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Vulgate  fur- 
nished an  unfortunate  example.  A  very  few  in- 
stances of  a  large  number  of  such  words,  which 
appeared  in  the  Douay  Version  but  have  been 
removed  in  the  several  subsequent  revisions  are: 
"  odible  to  God  "  (Eomans  1 :  30),  "  exinanited  him- 
self "  (Philippians  II:  7),  "Thou  hast  fatted  my 
head  with  oil"  (Psalm  XXIII:  5),  "after  the 
Parasceve  "  (Matthew  XXVII :  62),  "  longanimite  " 
(II  Corinthians  VI:  6),  "  commessations "  (Gala- 
tians  V:  21),  "keep  the  depositum "  (I  Timothy 
VI:  20),  "as  in  that  exacerbation"  (Hebrews 
III:  15). 

As  a  partial  compensation,  this  literalism  has  en- 
riched our  English  language  with  many  words  from 
the  Latin  that  thereafter  passed  into  good  English 
and  has  given  the  Authorized  Version  some  effective 
phrases.  The  fierce  opposition  which  this  version  of 
the  Scriptures  met  with  in  England  perhaps  helped 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  89 

as  much  as  anything  to  establish  the  Rheims  Testa- 
ment, and  later  the  whole  Don  ay  Bible,  in  the  affec- 
tions of  the  English  Roman  Catholics. 

2.  THE  REVISED  VERSIONS  OF  THE  DOUAY 

The  need,  however,  of  a  thorough  revision  of  the 
Douay  Bible  was  soon  felt.  The  unintelligible  char- 
acter of  much  of  its  English,  the  manifest  errors  in 
the  Vulgate  text  employed,  and  the  success  of  the 
King  James  Version,  which  they  naturally  emulated, 
emphasized  this  need.49 

(1)   The  Clialloner  Bible 

Yet  the  only  largely  effective  work  in  this  direc- 
tion, thus  far,  has  been  that  of  Challoner,  Cath- 
olic Vicar-Apostolic  of  London.  In  1749  he  brought 
out  an  edition  of  the  Rheims  !N"ew  Testament,  and 
later  of  the  whole  Douay  Bible,  "  newly  revised  and 
corrected  according  to  the  Clementine  edition  of  the 
Scriptures."  This  work  was  worthy.  It  remains 
within  the  obvious  limitations  of  all  translations 
from  the  Vulgate,  as  far  as  the  substance  goes.  Yet 
its  alterations  of  the  language  of  the  Douay  Version 
were  so  many  as  to  amount  almost  to  a  new  transla- 
tion. In  these  alterations  one  of  the  chief  guides 
used  was  the  Prqtestant  Authorized  Version  of  1611. 
Indeed,  so  much  of  the  phrasing  was  borrowed  from 
this  source  that  Newman  (Catholic)  concluded,  as 
Cotton  (Protestant)  had  done  before  him,  that 
"  Challoner's  Version  [of  the  Old  Testament]  is 


90  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

even  nearer  to  the  Protestant  than  it  is  to  the 
Douay."  50  And  that  the  same  holds  in  the  New 
Testament,  both  have  shown.  It  is  therefore  little 
less  than  amazing  to  find  in  the  American  edition 
of  the  Bible  approved  by  Cardinal  Gibbons,  which, 
like  the  Denvir  Edition  before  it,  reproduces  Chal- 
loner  almost  invariably,  the  statement  over  the  Car- 
dinal's name  that  this  "  is  an  accurate  reprint  of 
the  Kheims  and  Douay  Edition  with  Dr.  Challoner's 
Notes:1 

(2)   The  Troy  Bible 

The  only  other  revision  that  has  had  any  notice- 
able effect  on  subsequent  editions  is  that  known  as 
the  Troy  Bible.  This  was  the  work  of  an  Irish 
priest,  Bernard  MacMahon.  He  seems  to  have  fol- 
lowed the  King  James  Version  only  a  little  less 
than  Challoner.  In  the  New  Testament  he  differs 
from  Challoner  in  over  five  hundred  places;  in  the 
Old  Testament  scarcely  at  all.  So  great  was  the 
popular  adherence  to  Challoner  that  the  first  edition 
of  the  Troy  Bible  was  set  forth  as  "  the  fourth  edi- 
tion," evidently  of  Challoner,  "  revised  and  corrected 
anew."  51 

(3)   The  "Authentic"  Catholic  English  Version 

These  Challoner  and  Troy  revisions  of  the  Douay 
are,  then,  the  Bibles  used  by  the  Catholics  of  Eng- 
land and  America.52  Dixon's  Introduction  (Catho- 
lic) says :  "  This — Dr.  Challoner's — is  the  Douay 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  91 

Bible  now  current  among  the  Catholics  of  this  coun- 
try." Cardinal  Gibbons  writes :  "  The  Douay  Ver- 
sion is  authorized  and  legitimate  for  the  faithful  in 
their  private  reading."  As  his  authorization  of  the 
Challoner-Douay  shows,  he  calls  this  the  Douay.  To 
speak  accurately,  one  generally  finds  in  the  hands 
of  such  American  Catholics  as  have  any  English 
Bible  the  Challoner-Douay,  with  some  minor  vari- 
ations. The  editions  usually  bear,  not  Challoner' s 
name,  but  that  of  some  subsequent  editor  or  of  the 
archbishop  who  approves  them. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  one  cannot  speak  ac- 
curately of  any  one  English  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  the  "  Authentic  Version  of  God's  Words 
authorized  by  the  [Roman  Catholic]  Church  "  read 
by  the  people  in  their  homes.53  The  Latin  Vulgate 
has  been  declared  "  authentic "  by  the  Catholic 
Church;  but  people  in  American  homes  do  not  read 
much  Latin.  Neither  the  Douay  nor  the  Challoner 
nor  the  Troy  Bible  has  been  authorized  by  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  The  Troy  revision  is  not  the  Challoner 
revision.  The  Challoner-Douay  is  not  the  Douay. 

(4)   "  Unchanged  from  the  Time  of  Christ " 

Still  less  ground — if  possible — is  there  for  saying 
that  this  so-called  Authentic  Version  "  has  come  down 
to  us  unchanged  from  the  time  of  Christ  Himself." 
Subject  to  numerous  changes,  and  all  the  vicissitudes 
of  translation  and  transmission,  these  English  Cath- 
olic versions  all  go  back,  in  the  chief  part  of  the  Old 


92  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Testament,  to  the  same  Hebrew  text  as  that  of  the 
Protestant  versions — a  text  which  assumed  its  present 
form  in  the  second  century  A.D.,  though  coming 
down  to  the  Catholic  translators  for  most  of  that 
time  in  the  Latin  translation  of  the  Vulgate.  In 
the  Psalms  and  some  smaller  parts,  these  Catholic 
versions  go  back  to  the  Septuagint  Greek  Version, 
made  before  Christ,  but  transmitted  to  the  English- 
American  Catholic  in  the  form  of  a  translation  of 
a  translation  of  a  translation.  The  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were,  of  course,  none  of  them  writ- 
ten until  after  Christ's  time.  The  Challoner-Douay 
Version  of  these  books,  so  far  as  it  has  borrowed 
from  the  Authorized  Version,  goes  back  to  late  copies 
of  the  received  Greek  text  of  the  Antiochian  type. 
In  the  main,  it  goes  back,  through  the  Vulgate,  to 
the  Old  Latin  translation  of  the  second  century  and 
the  Western  Greek  text  which  that  represents.  There 
are  the  strongest  grounds  for  believing  that  "  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  "  has  come  down  to  us  sub- 
stantially unchanged  in  all  the  versions.  But  it 
passes  comprehension  how  any  intelligent  person,  re- 
membering the  uncertainties  of  the  Hebrew  text,  the 
looseness  of  the  Septuagint,  the  amplifications  and 
omissions  of  the  Western  Greek  text,  the  varieties  of 
the  Old  Latin  version,  the  checkered  history  of  the 
Vulgate  itself,  and  then  the  variations  in  the  Catho- 
lic English  versions  of  the  Vulgate,  could  speak  of 
Challoner,  Douay,  or  Vulgate  as  an  "  Authentic  Ver- 
sion .  .  .  which  has  come  down  to  us  unchanged 
from  the  time  of  Christ  Himself." 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  93 


(5)   Worth  of  the  Clialloner-Douay  Version 

As  a  translation,  the  Challoner-Douay  is  a  vast 
improvement  over  the  harsh,  un-English  English  of 
the  Douay  Version.  One  may  read  chapter  after 
chapter  and  fancy  one  is  reading  from  the  King 
James  Version;  while,  to  turn  to  the  Douay,  made 
only  thirty  years  before  King  James's  translators  did 
their  work,  seems  like  turning  to  a  strange  tongue. 

For  all  this,  Challoner  and  his  successors  have 
followed  the  Vulgate  in  retaining,  interspersed 
among  Old  Testament  canonical  books,  seven  books 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  were  rejected  by  the  author 
of  the  Vulgate  translation  himself,  have  been  ad- 
judged a  distinctively  lower  class  of  writings  by  many 
Catholics  since,  and  have  no  valid  claim  to  such 
equality.  Out  of  servile  adherence  to  the  Vul- 
gate, they  have  retained  as  genuine  such  passages  as 
Mark  XV:  9-20,  which,  in  the  light  of  present 
knowledge,  certainly  should  not  be  retained  without 
some  indication  of  their  very  doubtful  character; 
and  others,  like  I  John  V:  7b— 8a,  which  have  no 
rightful  place  in  any  true  Bible.54  Despite  revisions, 
they  have  left,  for  example  in  the  Gibbons  Edition 
of  the  Challoner-Douay — one  of  those  commonly 
sold  in  America  in  this  year  of  our  Lord  1907 — 
such  words  and  sentences  as  the  following,  unintel- 
ligible or  misleading  to  most  English  readers: 

Psalm  XXII  (XXIII)  :  5,  "  My  chalice  which  in- 
ebriateth  me,  how  goodly  it  is !  " 


94  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Psalm  XLVIII:  6   (XLIX:  5),  "The  iniquity  of 

my  heel  shall  encompass  me." 
Psalm  CV  (CVI)  :  33,  "  And  he  distinguished  with 

his  lips." 
Acts   XII :    3,    "  E"ow  it  was   in  the   days   of  the 

Azymes." 
Acts  XVI :  16,  "A  certain  girl,  having  a  pythonical 

spirit." 
James  V :  17,  "  Elias  was  a  man  passible  like  unto 

us." 
I  John  IV :   3,   "  And  every  spirit  that  dissolveth 

Jesus  is  not  of  God." 

(6)   Testimony    of    Catholic    Translators   from   the 
Hebrew  and  Greek 

Happily,  there  have  not  been  wanting  Catholic 
scholars  in  England  and  America,  who,  appreciating 
the  facts  above  mentioned,  and  believing  with  the 
Catholic  Geddes  that  "  translating  from  a  trans- 
lation is  a  strange  idea,"  have  undertaken  more 
accurate  and  more  intelligible  versions  direct  from 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek.  One  of  these,  Archbishop 
Kenrick  of  Baltimore,  between  the  years  1849  and 
1860,  translated  the  whole  Bible.  The  New  Testa- 
ment part  he  called,  "  A  translation  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,"  believing  that  in  the  New  Testament  books 
the  readings  of  the  Vulgate  were  generally  to  be 
preferred.  Even  here  he  freely  adopts  renderings 
from  a  former  Catholic  version  from  the  Greek  by 
Lingard,  and  from  the  Authorized  English  Version. 


S1TY 

OF 

^SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  95 

In  the  Old  Testament  part,  though  the  title  "  Re- 
vised Edition  of  the  Douay  "  is  still  maintained,  he 
tells  us  plainly  that,  while  respecting  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate as  an  authentic  version,  he  has  generally  pre- 
ferred the  readings  of  the  Hebrew  text ;  and  although, 
of  course,  delivering  himself  from  any  sympathy  with 
the  "  peculiar  tenets  "  of  the  Protestant  version,  says 
distinctly  that  this  version  is  better  than  those  made 
from  the  Vulgate.  But  Kenrick's  version  is  not 
wanted  by  Catholics.  It  is  out  of  print. 

The  most  recent  attempt  of  this  sort  is  a  version 
of  the  Four  Gospels  by  Francis  A.  Spencer,  O.P. 
This  follows  the  best  modern  editions  of  the  Greek 
text  and  the  English  Revised  Versions,  and  is  pro- 
nounced by  Gigot,  of  the  Catholic  Seminary  in 
Baltimore,  "  in  several  respects  the  best  translation 
of  the  Gospels."  But  he  is  compelled  to  add  with 
reference  to  it :  "  It  is  not  probable,  however,  that 
this  '  New  Version '  will  meet  with  a  more  last- 
ing success  than  the  various  independent  [Catholic] 
translations  of  the  Gospels  which  have  preceded 
it,"  55 

Unhappily,  none  of  these  translations  direct  from 
Hebrew  or  Greek  has  been  approved  by  the  Catholic 
Church  or  by  Catholic  churchmen  generally.  So  per- 
sistent has  been  Roman  Catholic  devotion  to  the 
ancient  but  faulty  Vulgate,  and  to  the  obscure  and 
uncouth  Douay  Version  of  the  Vulgate,  that  little 
encouragement,  thus  far,  has  been  given  to  more  ac- 
curate translations  from  the  languages  in  which  the 
Bible  was  originally  written. 


CHAPTEK   IV 

THE  ORIGIN  AND  HISTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  REVISED 
VERSION  OF  THE  BIBLE,  AMERICAN  STANDARD 
EDITION 

THE  history  of  the  English  Bible  may  be  divided 
into  three  periods.  The  first  period  begins  with 
Anglo-Saxon  paraphrases  of  parts  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  is  completed  in  the  Wyclifite  Bible  of  the  four- 
teenth century;  the  second  includes  the  sixteenth 
century  versions  of  Tyndale  and  his  numerous  suc- 
cessors, and  culminates  in  the  Authorized  Version  of 
1611 ;  the  third  is  marked  by  the  English-Americar. 
revisions  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  centuries. 

THE    FIRST    PERIOD 

The  first  period — from  the  beginning  to  Wyclif 
— is  distinguished  by  translations  from  the  Latin 
Vulgate  only.  Contrary  to  the  Christian  practice  in 
Egypt,  Armenia,  and  in  Rome  itself,  where  the  peo- 
ple, almost  from  the  beginnings  of  Christianity,  read 
the  Scriptures  in  their  own  tongue,  the  Western 
Church  for  a  long  time  gave  the  people  of  England 
and  other  countries  only  the  Latin  Bible.  The 
church's  appeal  was  made  largely  through  pictures, 
rude  songs,  and,  later,  the  religious  drama;  its 
strength  was  in  ceremonials  and  moral  discipline. 

96 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  97 


1.  THE   ANGLO-SAXON   PARAPHRASES 

The  first  Anglo-Saxon  versions  of  the  Scriptures 
were  poems.  In  the  seventh  century  a  poetic  para- 
phrase of  Old  Testament  history  and  other  Scriptures 
was  made  by  Csedmon,  a  monk  of  Whitby,  England. 
This  is  the  earliest  Anglo-Saxon  translation  known. 
In  the  eighth  century  Aldhelm  and  Guthlac  put  forth 
an  interlinear  version  of  the  Psalter;  Eadfrith, 
Bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  translated  parts  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  the  Venerable  Bede  a  portion  of  the  Gospel 
of  John  and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  In  the  ninth  cen- 
tury there  was  another  Psalter  in  Anglo-Saxon.  In 
the  tenth  century  parts  of  the  book  of  Exodus  and 
the  Psalter  were  translated  by  King  Alfred,  while 
^Elfric,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  translated  the 
Gospels  and  seven  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  There 
exist  also  an  Anglo-Saxon  version  of  the  Gospels  by 
an  unknown  hand,  of  somewhat  later  date,  and,  in 
manuscript  form,  several  copies  of  the  Psalter,  pro- 
duced shortly  before  the  Conquest,  and  three  Anglo- 
Xorman  translations  of  the  Gospels,  dating  from  the 
time  of  William  III  to  the  time  of  Henry  II. 

From  the  thirteenth  century  we  have  a  metrical 
paraphrase  of  stories  from  the  Gospels  and  Acts — the 
earliest  known  translation  of  any  part  of  the  Bible 
into  Old  English  as  distinguished  from  Anglo-Saxon. 
To  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth  century  belong  two 
prose  versions  of  the  Psalms.  In  one  of  these  the 
first  Psalm  begins : 

Blessed  be  the  man  that  3ed  nouot  in  the 


98  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

ccmnseil  of  wicked :  ne  stode  nou5t  in  the 
waie  of  sinoeres,  ne  sat  nouot  in  fals  juge- 
ment.  Ac  hijs  wylle  was  in  the  wylle  of 
oure  Lord;  and  he  schal  thenche  in  hijs 
lawe  both  da3e  and  ny3t. 

2.  THE  WYCLIFITE  BIBLE 

The  work  of  John  Wyclif  ( 1324  [?] -1384)  and 
his  followers  distinguishes  the  fourteenth  century. 
Wyclif  was  a  priest.  He  loved  the  plain  people. 
For  their  sake  he  brought  out,  about  1383,  the  first 
entire  Bible  in  the  English  language.56  The  work 
was  not  all  his  own.  He  translated  the  Gospels  cer- 
tainly and,  almost  certainly,  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament.  His  friend,  Nicolas  Hereford,  Vice- 
Chancellor  of  Oxford,  translated  most  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Wyclif  probably  did  the  rest.57  A  re- 
vision, in  which  the  English  of  the  Old  Testament 
especially  was  improved,  was  begun  perhaps  under 
Wyclif's  supervision,  and,  after  his  death,  was  car- 
ried on  by  Purvey  and  other  friends  and  followers 
of  Wyclif,  and  published  in  1388.58 

(1)  Genuineness  of  the  Wyclifite  Bible 

It  has  sometimes  been  questioned  whether  Wyclif 
did  give  the  people  of  England  their  first  English 
Bible.  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
said  he  had  seen  English  Bibles  "  written  long  before 
WyclifiVs  times."  There  is  reason  to  believe  More 
mistook  the  age  of  one  of  the  Wyclifite  versions.  Of 
other  complete  Bibles  than  Wyclif's,  belonging  to 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  99 

the  fourteenth  century  or  earlier  no  vestige  can  be 
found;  except  the  theory  recently  advanced  by  a 
learned  Catholic  author,  that  the  Bibles  known  for 
centuries  as  Wyclifite  were  not  Wyclif's  in  any 
sense,  but  were  the  Bibles  to  which  More  refers,  au- 
thorized by  the  Catholic  Church.59  This  theory, 
though  ingeniously  defended,  ignores  altogether  part 
of  the  evidence  for  Wyclif's  authorship,  and  a  ver- 
dict of  "  not  proven  "  must  be  entered.60 

(2)   Wyclifs  Fitness  for  His  Work 

In  respect  of  character,  intelligent  ability,  and 
purpose  as  a  translator,  Wyclif  has  been  justified 
both  by  his  works  and  by  his  fellow  men.  Milman, 
in  his  History  of  Latin  Christianity ,  says :  "  His 
[Wyclifs]  austere,  exemplary  life  has  defied  even 
calumny."  His  best  biographer,  John  Lewis,  records 
that  he  was  acknowledged  learned,  able,  and  earnest 
by  the  ablest  men  of  his  day.  Of  his  ability,  Henry 
Knighton,  who  had  no  patience  with  Wyclifs  work 
as  a  translator,  says :  "  In  philosophy  Wycliffe  came 
to  be  reckoned  inferior  to  none  of  his  time."  61  In 
his  life,  as  recorded  by  his  bitterest  enemies,  there 
is  abundant  evidence  of  his  sacrificial  and  dauntless 
heroism.62  His  dominating  principle — and  in  this 
lay  his  offense — was  that,  not  the  church,  still  less 
the  Pope,  but  the  Bible,  should  be  the  guide  of  the 
people's  life,  and  to  be  this  it  must  be  an  English 
Bible.63  From  this  principle  came  the  great  work  of 
his  life. 


UK)  mw.i-;  YI-.USIONS  mMi'.\m;i> 

(8)  Character  and  Influence  of  Wyclifs  Work 

The  source  of  \Y\vlifs  Uihle,  like  that,  of  the  para- 
phrases heforo  it,  \\:is  the  Latin  Vulgate.  In  00X186- 
ipienee,  (his  version  hml  all  the  faults  of  the  faulty 
l.atiu.  Wvelif  ami  his  fellow  lahorers  knew  little 
<>r  nothing  of  llehrew  or  (Jreek.  The  Wvelif  trans- 
lation of  the  \A\\\\\  was  VCM-V  literal  and  often  nwk- 
\\artl  a  fault  somewhat  overeonie  in  Purvev's  re- 
vision.1''1 l-'or  all  this,  \Yvelifs  iindvin^  ^lorv  is  that, 
\\-\\\\  little  lu'lp  from  jn'tMleeessors,  and  despite  tllO 
opposition  of  llir  ehureh  authorities,  he  pivt^  to  Kng- 
land  its  tirst  entire  Hihle  in  the  native  tongiio.05 
The  intlii(Mie(»  of  this  work  was  felt  in  the  conflicts 
over  the  I'.ihle  in  the  time  of  Ilenrv  \' 1  I  I ,  and  from 
its  victories  then  lias  come  down  to  us.  l>esides  this, 
no  small  part  of  the  Mn^lisli  of  Wvclifs  Hihlo  is  tlio 
Kiiirlish  of  our  lliMes  still.  In  the  next  section  we 
shall  have  to  do  with  "Willinm  Tyndale,  the  great 
Bihle  translator  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Yet  here 
already  we  must  note  that,  while  Tyndale's  work, 
in  its  far  more  reliable  Hebrew  and  Greek  sources 
and  in  its  faithful,  scholarly  translation,  was  new, 
and  his  English  more  modern,  the  elementary  basis 
of  the  language  of  his  English  Bible,  and  so  of  the 
language  of  our  Eevised  Bibles  to-day,  is  in  Wyclifs 
work.  One  can  hardly  set  before  himself  any  famil- 
iar passage,  like  the  following  from  Wyclifs  New 
Testament,  without  acknowledging  this  debt  (only  the 
modern  y,  g,  and  v  are  inserted)  : 

Eomans  XII :  1,  2.    Therfore,  britheren, 


HUZJ;  KSSAY  101 

Y  biseche  you  bi  the  mercy  of  God,  that  ye 
gyve  youre  bodies  a  lyvynge  sacrifice,  hooli, 
plesynge  to  God,  a  lyvynge  servyse  reason- 
able. And  nyle  [not  will]  ye  be  con- 
fourmyd  to  this  world,  but  be  ye  reformed 
in  newnease  of  youre  wit,  that  ye  preve 
[prove]  which  is  the  wille  of  God,  good 
and  wel  plesynge  and  parfit  [perfect].*6 

THE   SECOND  PERIOD 

3.  THE  TYNDALE  BIBLE 

The  second,  and  in  some  respects  most  important, 
period  in  the  development  of  the  English  Bible  be- 
gins with  William  Tyndale  (1484[  ?]-1536)  and 
culminates  in  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611.  For 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  a  few  English  manu- 
script Bibles  had  been  copied  from  time  to  time,  and 
were  read  by  a  few,  though  not  without  danger  from 
the  authorities.67  These  Bibles  were  not  in  sixteenth 
century  English,  however;  they  were  not  translated 
from  the  original  languages  of  the  Bible;  they  were 
not  printed;  and  they  were  not  circulated  freely  in 
the  hands  of  the  people. 

But  the  world  was  advancing.  The  fourteenth 
century  had  heralded  the  dawn  of  a  better  day:  the 
sixteenth  witnessed  the  full  daybreak  In  1455  the 
first  book  printed  in  Europe  with  movable  types  had 
been  published.  It  was  a  Latin  Bible.  A  revival  of 
the  study  of  the  ancient  classics  had  set  in.  Latin 
was  no  longer  to  be  the  sole  language  of  "  the  faith- 


102  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

ful,"  nor  Hebrew  and  Greek  the  despised  weapons  of 
"  heretics."  Dictionaries  and  grammars  of  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  languages  had  been  prepared.  In 
1488  the  first  printed  Hebrew  Bible  had  been  issued. 
In  1516  the  famous  scholar  Erasmus  published  his 
Greek  "New  Testament.  In  1517  the  free  spirit  of 
the  Reformation  found  expression  in  Luther's  theses, 
and  only  a  little  later  in  England's  break  with  Rome. 
Then  came  William  Tyndale's  opportunity.68 

(1)   Tyndales  Work 

He  was  a  man  of  clear  vision  and  heroic  determi- 
nation. Himself  a  priest  of  the  church,  he  recognized 
the  fact,  to  which  apparently  no  less  a  Catholic  than 
Cardinal  Bellarmine  bears  witness,  that  the  church 
of  his  day  was  sadly  lacking  in  education,  in  moral 
discipline,  in  real  religion.69  The  primary  need,  as 
he  conceived  it,  was  an  English  Bible  translated  from 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  into  the  language  of  the 
people.  Repulsed  by  the  churchmen  of  his  native 
land,  he  sent  forth  from  Worms,,  Germany,  in  1525, 
his  first  edition  of  the  New  Testament  in  English. 
Despite  ecclesiastical  prohibition,  the  book  circulated 
in  England  by  hundreds.70  Within  ten  years  Tyn- 
dale  added  a  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
book  of  Jonah,  and  a  careful  revision  of  his  New 
Testament.  All  this  excited  fierce  opposition.  Tyn- 
dale's  opinions  were  condemned,  and  his  Testaments, 
so  far  as  possible,  confiscated  and  burned.  In  1536, 
having  been  betrayed  by  certain  agents,  when  at  Ant- 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  103 

werp,  lie  was  strangled  to  death  and  his  body  burned 
at  Vilvorde,  Belgium,  near  Brussels.  Yet  Tyndale 
was  successful.  His  dying  words  were,  "  Lord,  open 
the  king  of  England's  eyes."  Within  a  year  of  his 
death,  the  whole  Bible  in  English,  including  his  own 
translation  of  the  New  Testament,  was  freely  circu- 
lated in  his  native  land  by  order  of  the  King  of  Eng- 
land himself. 

(2)  Tyndale 's  Character 

Certain  Roman  Catholic  teachers  of  repute  have 
lately  repeated  aspersions  on  Tyndale's  character, 
learning,  and  purpose  in  translation,  belittling  the 
worth  and  reliability  of  his  version  of  the  Scrip- 
tures.71 What  are  the  facts  ?  That  he  was  a  man  of 
conscience  and  heroic  resolution  his  life  as  an  exile, 
and  his  death  as  a  martyr  to  the  cause  he  loved,  give 
unimpeachable  witness.  The  same  moral  fiber  is  re- 
vealed in  his  words,  anticipatory  of  his  fate :  "  In 
burning  the  New  Testament  they  did  none  other  than 
I  looked  for ;  no  more  shall  they  do  if  they  burn  me 
also,  if  it  be  God's  will  it  shall  be  so.  Nevertheless, 
in  translating  the  New  Testament  I  did  my  duty  and 
so  do  I  now.  .  .  ."  72  In  such  controversies  as  that 
with  Sir  Thomas  More,  he  was  sometimes,  though 
not  without  severe  provocation,  needlessly  virulent.73 
Yet  he  was  a  man  of  marked  humility,  unselfishly 
subordinating  himself  to  his  great  aim  of  giving  the 
best  possible  translation  of  the  Bible  to  the  English 
people.74 


104  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


(3)  Tyndale  s  Scholarship 

What  of  Tyndale's  scholarship  ?  He  spent  at  least 
eleven  years  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge  Universities. 
In  1903  a  Roman  Catholic  professor  describes  him  as 
"  a  Franciscan  priest  who,  having  turned  out  a  Prot- 
estant, undertook  to  publish  a  translation  of  the 
whole  Bible  from  the  original  text,  though  he  had 
but  little  knowledge  of  Hebrew."  But  in  Tyndale's 
time  his  contemporaries  who  knew  him,  even  though 
they  were  ardent  Catholics  and  bitterly  hostile  to 
Tyndale's  work,  bore  witness  to  him  as  "  a  man  of 
right  good  living,  studious  and  well  learned  in  Scrip- 
ture," a  scholar  of  "  high  learning  in  his  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  Latin."  75 


(4)  Tyndale  as  a  Translator 

As  a  translator,  Tyndale  was  independent,  mi- 
nutely careful,  conscientious.  He  did  not  discard  the 
Latin  Vulgate  nor  despise  the  help  of  modern  ver- 
sions. He  was  guided  somewhat  by  Luther's  German 
Bible;  still  more,  though  chiefly  in  the  matter  of 
English  phraseology,  by  the  Wyclifite  versions.76 
Yet  he  used  all  these  as  a  scholar,  with  main  reliance 
on  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Testaments.  His  version 
had  faults  of  inexactness  and  uncouth  style.  Yet  it 
is  the  all  but  unanimous  testimony  of  scholars  that 
for  felicity  of  diction,  Tyndale  has  never  been  sur- 
passed.77 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  105 

(5)  Tyndale's  Purpose 

His  dominating  purpose  may  be  fairly  stated  in 
his  own  words.  He  never  wrote,  he  declares,  "  either 
to  stir  up  any  false  doctrine  or  opinion  in  the  Church, 
or  to  be  the  author  of  any  sect,  or  to  draw  disciples 
after  me,  or  that  I  would  be  esteemed  above  the  least 
child  that  is  born,  but  only  out  of  pity  and  com- 
passion which  I  had,  and  yet  have,  on  the  darkness 
of  my  brethren,  and  to  bring  them  to  the  knowledge 
of  Christ." 

(6)  Tyndale's  Influence 

Tyndale  did  not  live  long  enough  to  translate  the 
whole  Bible.  But,  besides  the  parts  published  in  his 
lifetime,  he  translated  and  bequeathed  to  his  suc- 
cessors the  Old  Testament  books  from  Joshua  to  II 
Chronicles,  and  certain  liturgical  epistles  from  the 
Prophets  and  the  Apocrypha. 

The  influence  of  Tyndale's  work  on  our  standard 
English  Version  can  scarcely  be  exaggerated.  Re- 
specting that  part  of  the  Bible  which  he  translated, 
it  has  been  estimated  that  no  less  than  eighty  per 
cent  of  his  translation  has  been  retained  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  ninety  per  cent  in  the  New.  The 
authors  of  the  English  Revised  New  Testament  of 
1881  say  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611:  "  The 
foundation  was  laid  by  William  Tyndale.  His  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  was  the  true,  primary 
version.  The  versions  that  followed  were  either  sub- 
stantially reproductions  of  Tyndale's  translation  in 


106 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


its  final  shape,  or  revisions  of  versions  that  had  been 
themselves  almost  entirely  based  on  it."  78  A  hint  of 
this  may  be  given  in  even  a  verse  or  two  (with  spell- 
ing modernized)  : 

Philippians  II:  5-8 


TYNDALE 

Let  the  same  mind  be  in 
you  that  was  in  Christ  Jesus, 
which  being  in  the  shape  of 
God,  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God.  Nev- 
ertheless he  made  himself  of 
no  reputation,  and  took  on  him 
the  shape  of  a  servant,  and  be- 
came like  unto  men,  and  was 
found  in  his  apparel  as  a  man. 
He  humbled  himself,  and  be- 
came obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross. 


AMERICAN  REVISED  VERSION 
Have  this  mind  in  you, 
which  was  also  in  Christ  Je- 
sus: who,  existing  in  the  form 
of  God,  counted  not  the  being 
on  an  equality  with  God  a 
thing  to  be  grasped,  but  emp- 
tied himself,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant,  being  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men;  and  be- 
ing found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
he  humbled  himself,  becoming 
obedient  even  unto  death,  yea, 
the  death  of  the  cross. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVISED  VERSION 
(CONTINUED) 

IT  is  easy  to  remember  the  great  works  of  Wyclif 
and  Tyndale.  In  order  to  prevent  confusion  through 
the  numerous  works  succeeding  theirs,  it  will  help  if 
we  set  them  down  plainly,  with  their  dates.  The  last 
four  are  simply  revisions  of  their  predecessors. 

1525,  Tyndale's  Bible. 

1535,  Coverdale's  Bible. 

1537,  Matthew's  (Rogers's)  Bible. 

1539,  The  Great  Bible. 

1539,  Taverner's  Bible., 

1560,  The  Genevan  Bible. 

1568,  The  Bishops'  Bible. 

Next  after  these,  setting  aside  the  Rheims-Douay 
Version  of  1582  and  1609,  already  described,  came 
the  Authorized  Version  of  1611.  (See  Diagram  3.) 

1.  THE  COVEKDALE  BIBLE 

Myles  Coverdale  was  an  Augustinian  friar,  whose 
heart  was  against  church  abuses,  but  whose  mild 
temper  made  him  a  willing  follower,  anxious  to  avoid 
offense,  rather  than  an  intense  leader  like  Tyndale. 
At  the  suggestion  of  Thomas  Cromwell,  Minister 
of  State,  Coverdale  undertook  a  translation  of  the 

107 


108  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Bible.79  In  this  work  he  proved  himself  honest  and 
humbly  receptive  of  the  truth.  Though  knowing 
something  of  Hebrew,  his  Bible  was  not  from  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  but  was  "  faithfully  and  fully 
translated  out  of  the  Douche  [German]  and  Latin." 
Yet  he  made  large  use  of  Tyndale's  work  from  the 
originals,  so  far  as  that  went.  This  and  the  Zurich 
German  Bible  of  1529,  were  his  chief  guides.80  In 
conserving  the  great  end — a  true  reproduction  of  the 
original  writings — Myles  Coverdale's  work  was  of  a 
subordinate  sort.  Yet  his  contribution  was  note- 
worthy, (1)  because  he  gave  the  first  complete  Eng- 
lish Bible  in  the  sixteenth  century;  (2)  because  he 
revised  and  secured  circulation  for  what  was  prac- 
tically Tyndale's  New  Testament;  (3)  because  he 
was  the  author  of  many  Bible  words  and  phrases  of 
lasting  worth  and  beauty.81  Coverdale's  Bible  was 
the  first  to  include  the  Apocrypha,  but  with  a  head- 
ing that  distinguished  it  clearly  from  the  canonical 
books.82 

(1)  King  Henry  VIII  and  the  Licensed  Bible 

Strange  as  it  may  seem,  the  first  edition  of  Cover- 
dale's  Bible  (1535)  was  not  suppressed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment. The  popular  demand  for  the  Scriptures  in 
England  was  making  itself  felt  through  the  Govern- 
ment and  through  Convocation,  even  while  Tyndale 
was  in  prison.83  Archbishop  Cranmer  and  some  of 
the  bishops  were  heartily  in  favor  of  English  ver- 
sions. King  Henry  VIII  was  sympathetic  toward 
the  New  Learning,  if  it  did  not  interfere  with  his 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  109 

authority.84  Though  always  a  Catholic  in  tempera- 
ment, because  of  his  divorce  from  Catherine  of  Aragon 
and  marriage  to  Anne  Boleyn,  he  had,  in  1534,  com- 
pleted a  rupture  with  the  Pope  of  Rome,  which  was 
even  in  Wyclif's  time  becoming  inevitable.  This 
fact,  and  his  ambition  to  be  himself  supreme  head  of 
a  united  nation  with  a  national  language,  which  an 
English  version  would  promote,  made  Henry  the 
more  ready  to  favor  the  use  of  the  English  Bible 
and  encourage  reverence  for  its  authority.  The  pow- 
erful but  heartless  primate,  Cromwell,  also  had  am- 
bitions of  his  own  to  advance.  So  it  came  about  that 
when  Cover  dale's  second  edition  was  ready,  in  1537, 
it  was  "  set  forth  with  the  king's  most  gracious 
license." 

(2)  The  Primary  Reason  for  the  Licensed  Bible 
Yet  neither  King  Henry  nor  Thomas  Cromwell, 
however  self-seeking  and  self-willed,  could  ever  have 
used  the  desire  of  the  English  people  for  the  Bible  in 
their  native  tongue,  or  the  earnest  purpose  of  Tyn- 
dale  and  his  successors  to  satisfy  that  desire,  for  a 
support  to  their  selfishness,  if  this  desire  and  pur- 
pose had  not  first  existed  as  the  primary  cause  of 
Bible  translation.85 

(3)  Cover  dale's  Purpose 

What  Coverdale's  purpose  in  his  work  was  is  hon- 
estly stated  in  his  Prologue :  "  To  say  the  truth  before 
God,  it  was  neither  my  labor  nor  desire  to  have  this 
work  in  hand;  nevertheless  it  grieved  me  that  other 


110  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

nations  should  be  more  plenteously  provided  for  with 
the  Scripture  in  their  mother-tongue  than  we.  .  ."  86 
"  I .  .  .  have  with  a  clear  conscience  purely  and  faith- 
fully translated  this  out  of  five  sundry  interpreters, 
having  only  the  manifest  truth  of  Scripture  before 
mine  eyes . . . . "  87 

2.  THE  MATTHEW'S  BIBLE 

The  name  Matthew's  Bible  was  given  to  a  com- 
pilation of  Tyndale's  and  Coverdale's  translations, 
edited  and  published  in  1537  by  John  Rogers,  un- 
der the  name  of  Thomas  Matthew.  John  Rogers 
was  a  Cambridge  graduate  of  1525,  and  a  clergy- 
man who  gradually  withdrew  from  Rome.  He  was 
an  honest  and  earnest  but  bigoted  reformer,  who, 
having  approved  the  burning  of  Joan  of  Kent,  was 
himself  a  brave  martyr  under  the  persecutions  of 
Queen  Mary.88  A  friend  of  Tyndale,  Tyndale  had 
left  in  Rogers's  hand  his  unpublished  translation 
from  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  from  Joshua 
to  II  Chronicles.  It  is  almost  certain  that  this,  with 
Tyndale's  Pentateuch,  the  remaining  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  from  Coverdale's  version,  and  Tyndale's 
New  Testament,  formed  Matthew's  Bible.  Rogers's 
own  work  on  it  was  that  of  an  editor.  Yet  his 
biographer  shows  that  his  editing  was  laborious  and 
careful — an  example  of  his  independent  and  sound 
judgment  being  his  omission  from  Psalm  XIV  of 
three  verses  which  Coverdale,  mistakenly  following 
the  Vulgate,  had  put  in.89  Despite  the  fact  that 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  111 

about  two  thirds  of  the  translation  was  by  William 
Tyndale,  whose  works  had  been  publicly  burned  and 
himself,  with  King  Henry's  acquiescence,  strangled 
only  the  year  before,  this  Bible  was  not  only  licensed 
by  the  King,  but  expressly  permitted  to  be  "  sold  and 
read  of  every  person  without  danger  of  any  act,  proc- 
lamation, or  ordinance  heretofore  granted  to  the 
contrary."  In  Matthew's  Bible  was  found  the  con- 
stituent character  and  form  that  distinguished  the 
Protestant  English  Bible  down  to  and  including  the 
Authorized  Version  of  1611. 

3.  THE  GREAT  BIBLE 

Several  revised  editions  now  ^followed.  One  was 
the  Great  Bible  of  1539.  This  was  a  revision,  by 
Coverdale,  the  tireless  reviser,  and  others,  of  the  Old 
Testament  of  Matthew's  Bible  (Tyndale's  and  Cov- 
er dale's  work)  and  of  the  New  Testament  of  Tyndale. 
Unfortunately,  many  small  additions  were  introduced 
from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  whose  tendency  to  incorrect 
expansion  of  the  thought  of  the  Scripture  writers  has 
been  noted.90 

4.  TAVERNER'S  BIBLE 

Taverner's  revision,  also  of  1539,  was,  for  Protes- 
tant versions,  comparatively  unimportant.  Richard 
Taverner  was  a  lawyer  and  a  good  Greek  scholar,  but 
not  a  Hebraist.  The  Old  Testament  of  later  versions 
was  little  affected  by  his  edition.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  naturally  his  work  was  best,  a  few  happy 
renderings  of  his  have  become  permanent. 


112  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(1)  "  Back  Only  to  the  Days  of  Henry  VIII " 

These,  then,  were  the  English  Bibles  published 
during  King  Henry's  reign.  It  has  been  said  that 
"  the  Protestant  Version  goes  back  only  to  the  days  of 
Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  was  then  gotten  up  for 
obvious  reasons."  How  grossly  incorrect  this  is  in 
the  case  of  the  present  Revised  Bible  will  be  seen 
later.  Yet  even  of  those  versions  that  had  not  the 
advantage  of  the  most  ancient  New  Testament  manu- 
scripts the  statement  is  a  surprising  one.  For  Tyn- 
dale  and  his  successors,  except  Coverdale,  went  back 
to  the  traditional  Hebrew  and  Greek  text,  in  late 
copies  indeed,  but  reaching  back  to  at  least  the  end 
of  the  second  and  third  centuries  respectively.  Some 
of  them  used  also  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  so  shared 
with  the  Catholics  whatever  advantages  accrue  from 
that. 

(2)  "For  Obvious  Reasons" 

Just  what  is  meant  by  the  Protestant  version  be- 
ing "  gotten  up  for  obvious  reasons  "  is  not  clear : 
whether  personal  reasons  (of  Henry  VIII)  or  Prot- 
estant reasons  (of  the  Protestant  translators).  ISTo 
one  questions  the  mixed  character  of  the  motives  of 
King  Henry  above  described ;  but  those  motives  could 
no  more  vitiate  the  work  to  which  Tyndale  and  his 
followers  gave  their  lives  than  the  blood  upon  the 
hands  of  Queen  Mary  could  stain  the  saintly  devo- 
tion of  a  Rowland  Taylor.  The  obvious  reason  for 
the  work  of  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  and  Rogers  was  that 
they  believed  themselves  called  of  God  to  give  the 


SECOND   PRIZE   ESSAY  113 

people  a  faithful  version  of  the  Bible  in  a  language 
they  could  understand. 

5.  THE  GENEVAN  BIBLE 

The  Genevan  Version  took  its  name  from  Geneva, 
Switzerland,  whither  many  Englishmen  had  fled,  to 
escape  the  Roman  Catholic  persecutions  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Mary.  There,  in  1557,  Whittingham — one 
of  the  nonconforming  clergy  and  a  brother-in-law  of 
John  Calvin — had  completed  a  revision  of  Tyndale's 
New  Testament,  in  accordance  with  the  Greek.  This 
New  Testament,  itself  re-revised,  together  with  the 
Old  Testament  of  Matthew's  Bible,  compared  with 
excellent  Latin,  German,  and  French  versions  and 
thoroughly  corrected,  was  issued  in  1560  by  a  com- 
pany of  Genevan  pastors,  including  Whittingham 
himself,  John  Knox,  and  Coverdale.91 

The  Genevan  Bible  was  abreast  of  the  soundest 
scholarship  of  the  times,  though  the  text  on  which  it, 
like  the  rest,  depended  was  still  faulty.  It  enjoyed 
an  immense  popularity,  not  only  till  the  publication 
of  the  King  James  Version  in  1611,  but  for  half  a 
century  after  that.  Its  notes  were  strongly  Calvin- 
istic,  and,  in  a  very  few  instances,  its  translation 
gives  some  ground  for  the  charge  of  Roman  Catholic 
critics  that  "  English  Protestants  corrupted  the  text  " 
for  dogmatic  ends.92  With  these  rare  exceptions,  the 
Genevan  revisers  made  their  work  square  with  their 
pledge  that  "  in  every  point  and  word "  they  had 
"  faithfully  rendered  the  text." 


114  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

6.  THE  BISHOPS'  BIBLE 

The  last  of  these  six  sixteenth-century  Bibles  was 
the  Bishops'  Bible.  The  Genevan  Bible  was  Puri- 
tan; the  Great  Bible — the  then  Authorized  Version 
— was  of  inferior  worth.  So  the  bishops  set  to  work 
on  a  new  revision.  Taking  the  Great  Bible  as  their 
basis,  save  where  "  it  varieth  manifestly  "  from  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  they  sometimes  followed  it  where 
the  Genevan  Version  was  far  more  accurate.  "  Bit- 
ter or  controversial  notes  "  were  excluded,  and  wisely 
so;  for  such  notes  had  often  obscured  the  true  sense 
of  Scripture.  The  several  parts  of  the  Bishops'  Ver- 
sion, done  by  different  translators,  were  of  varying 
merit.  Although  authorized  by  Convocation,  it  was 
unpopular,  partly  because  of  a  certain  ornate  and 
artificial  style  of  language,  very  different  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  other  English  versions. 

7.  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION 
(1)  Its  Scope 

The  King's  Bible,  or  so-called  "  Authorized  Ver- 
sion," was  itself  a  revised  version,  like  those  before 
and  after  it.93  Undertaken  in  1604  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  Puritans,  ordered  by  King  James  I,  and  exe- 
cuted under  the  supervision  of  the  Anglican  bishops, 
this  version  aimed  to  be  nonsectarian  within  the  lim- 
its of  Protestantism.  ~Not  any  one  man  or  party,  but 
fifty-four  men,  including  Anglicans  and  Puritans, 
theologians  and  linguists,  were  chosen  to  'do  the  work* 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  115 

They  did  it  in  six  companies,  each  man  translating 
the  part  assigned  to  his  company,  and  then  submit- 
ting his  translation  to  his  associates.  Finally,  a  rep- 
resentative committee  reviewed  the  work  and  passed 
on  difficult  points. 

(2)  Its  Sources 

The  Bishops'  Bible,  being  the  Authorized  Version 
at  the  time,  was  named  as  the  basis  of  the  new  re- 
vision. The  revisers,  however,  were  to  adhere  to  it 
only  "  as  far  as  the  truth  of  the  original  would  per- 
mit." In  fact,  of  the  English  translations,  they  fol- 
lowed chiefly  the  Genevan,  and  next  the  Khemish.94 
Unfortunately,  they  had  only  a  poor  copy  of  the  He- 
brew Old  Testament,  though  some  recently  made 
Latin  translations  of  the  traditional  Hebrew  and  the 
Syriac  were  helps.  In  the  !N"ew  Testament  they  were 
not  much  better  off,  depending  chiefly  on  a  copy  of 
the  Greek  Testament  which  was  based  in  turn  on  a 
Greek  text  made  from  only  a  few  manuscripts,  no 
more  than  two  of  which  were  ancient.95 

(3)  Its  Worth 

King  James's  translators  were  men  of  sound  schol- 
arship, and  they  made  the  best  of  their  materials. 
They  worked  for  two  years  and  nine  months  with 
painstaking  industry,  and  in  1611  published  their 
work.  Because  of  a  lack  of  sufficient  cooperation 
between  the  companies,  it  is  uneven  in  quality.  Much 
of  it  is  forceful  and  happy  in  expression.  Its  sharp- 


116  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

est  critics  have  been  able  to  point  to  only  a  passage 
here  and  there  that  gives  a  suspicion  of  dogmatic 
bias.96  The  "  studied  variety  of  renderings  "  given 
to  one  and  the  same  word  sometimes  obscures  the 
meaning,  though  perhaps  adding  to  the  elegance  of 
the  translation.  Indeed,  it  has  been  remarked  of  the 
Old  Testament  especially  that  the  "  splendid  stateli- 
ness  of  the  English  version  sometimes  makes  us 
blind  to  the  deficiencies  in  the  sense."  Catholic  and 
Protestant  concur  in  the  verdict  that  "  the  English 
of  the  Authorized  Version  is  the  finest  specimen  of 
our  prose  literature  at  a  time  when  English  prose 
wore  its  stateliest  and  most  majestic  form."  97  Yet 
the  Version's  stateliness  does  not  bar  out  simplicity. 
Ninety  per  cent  of  its  words  are  Saxon. 

Meeting  with  strong  opposition  at  first — for,  as 
its  authors  naively  say,  "  cavil,  if  it  do  not  find  a 
hole,  will  be  sure  to  make  one"-— the  Authorized 
Version  has  yet  stood  for  nearly  three  hundred  years 
the  Bible  of  the  English-speaking  people,  and  is  still 
largely  in  popular  use.98 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVISED  VERSION 
(CONCLUDED) 

THE  THIRD  PERIOD 
1.  THE  ENGLISH  REVISED  VERSION 

AFTER  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611,  came  a 
long  pause  in  Bible  translation.  Neither  material 
nor  scholarship  was  ready  for  a  united  and  effective 
advance.  At  last,  in  1870,  the  third  period  in  the 
history  of  the  English  Bible  was  marked  by  the  in- 
ception of  the  English  Revised  Version.  The  feeling 
one  may  have  that,  after  so  many  revisions  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  nothing  further  should  be  neces- 
sary, or  that  the  Authorized  Version  is  "  good 
enough/'  is  soon  dispelled  by  a  little  consideration  of 
the  facts. 

(1)  Reasons  for  Revision 

The  natural  growth  of  language,  with  its  changes 
of  meaning,  of  itself  makes  periodic  revision  a  neces- 
sity. King  James's  translators  had  not  always  made 
correct  translations.  The  numerous  errors  of  copy- 
ists of  Bible  manuscripts  were  no  longer  being  re- 
peated; but  even  the  printed  Bibles  contained  mis- 
takes, sometimes  serious,  more  often  ludicrous.  For 
instance:  the  edition  of  the  Authorized  Version  of 

117 


118  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

1638  makes  Numbers  XXV:  18  say,  "  They  vex  you 
with  their  wives"  ("wiles"),  and  that  of  1682 
makes  the  divorce  law  of  Deuteronomy  XXIV: 
3  say,  "  If  the  latter  husband  ate  her  "  (for  "  hate 
her").99  Mechanical  means  and  clerical  skill  have 
been  marvelously  improved,  preventing  a  repetition 
of  such  errors. 

Moreover,  the  growth  in  the  scientific  spirit  with 
its  love  of  accuracy,  together  with  a  notable  ad- 
vance in  studies  that  bear  particularly  on  biblical 
knowledge,  must  be  taken  into  account.  There  is  now 
a  long  list  of  scholars  whose  lives  are  given  wholly 
to  the  study  of  ancient  languages.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment it  is  necessary,  as  yet,  to  use  chiefly  the  "  Re- 
ceived Text,"  for  lack  of  more  perfect  Hebrew  wit- 
nesses;100 but  large  additions  to  the  vocabulary  and 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language  have  been  made 
lately  through  the  study  of  Arabic  and  other  lan- 
guages related  to  the  Hebrew.101  The  study  of  Sans- 
krit— older  sister  to  the  Greek — an  appreciation  of 
the  Hebraistic  Greek  of  the  Bible,  as  distinguished 
from  classical  Greek,  and  the  use  of  the  comparative 
method  in  studying  language,  have  been  of  similar 
help  in  understanding  the  New  Testament.  In  both 
Old  and  New  Testaments  the  advance  in  geography, 
geology,  history,  and  archaeology  have  made  it  practi- 
cable to  reproduce  with  far  greater  accuracy  than  was 
formerly  possible  the  statements  of  the  Bible  writers. 
Encouraged  by  these  helps,  biblical  scholars  have 
done  much  since  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  especially  during  the  last  fifty  years,  in  collecting 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  119 

Bible  manuscripts,  examining  their  text,  comparing 
and  grouping  them ;  so  that  their  genealogy,  age,  and 
other  characteristics  may  determine  what  weight 
ought  to  be  given  to  their  testimony  as  to  what  was 
originally  written. 

Together  with  all  this,  and  more  important  than 
any  other  one  fact,  is  the  acquisition  in  the  last 
sixty  years  of  manuscript  copies  of  the  Bible,  and 
particularly  of  the  New  Testament,  that  are  regard- 
ed by  nearly  all  competent  judges  as  far  more  ancient 
and  true  to  the  original  Scriptures  than  anything 
before  available.  We  have  seen  that  there  are  five 
ancient  manuscripts  entitled  to  preeminence  in  this 
respect.  Not  one  of  these  was  available  as  a  con- 
tinuous text  when  the  Authorized  Version  was  made 
in  1611.  The  Douay  translators  and  Challoner  paid 
small  attention  to  the  Greek;  but  most  of  these 
manuscripts  they  could  not  have  used  had  they 
wished.  Only  one,  and  that  the  least  valuable,  was 
used  by  King  James's  translators  at  all :  from  it  they 
had  merely  select  readings.  Two  of  the  oldest  and 
best  three  were  not  known  to  exist  until  1844  and 
1859  respectively;  and  the  other  was  concealed  in  the 
Vatican  Library,  beyond  the  reach  of  investigators, 
until  1862.  Even  the  Alexandrian  Manuscript, 
which  stands  perhaps  fourth  in  value,  was  not  in  use 
as  a  whole  till  1786 — one  hundred  and  seventy-five 
years  after  the  Authorized  Version  was  completed. 
Besides  this,  a  large  number  of  later  manuscripts  and 
some  ancient  versions  were  at  that  time  almost  wholly 
uncollected  and  unused.102  (See  Diagram  1.) 


120  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 


(2)  The  Workers  and  the  Work 

It  was  in  the  light  of  these  facts  that  the  English 
Revision  was  undertaken  in  1870.  Private  transla- 
tions or  revisions  of  parts  of  the  Bible  had  heen 
attempted  from  time  to  time  by  individual  scholars, 
and  concerted  effort  was  urged  in  printed  publica- 
tions and  in  debate.103  At  length,  through  a  Re- 
vision Committee  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury, 
two  companies  of  English  scholars,  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  Nonconformists,  were  ap- 
pointed— one  to  revise  the  Old  Testament,  the  other 
the  New.  Of  important  religious  bodies,  only  Roman 
Catholics  had  no  share  in  the  work.  Cardinal  New- 
man was  invited,  but  declined.  After  the  work  was 
begun,  the  cooperation  of  American  scholars  was 
sought  and  given;  but  the  version,  in  its  original 
form,  remains  a  distinctively  English  revision.  In  all, 
about  eighty  biblical  scholars  cooperated  in  the  work. 

The  utmost  care  was  taken.  Each  passage  was 
gone  over  three  times,  and  no  change  was  made  un- 
less approved  by  two  thirds  of  the  Revisers.  Some 
ten  years  were  spent  on  the  New  Testament,  which 
was  published  in  1881 ;  and  upward  of  fourteen 
years  on  the  Old  Testament,  which  appeared  in 
1885. 104  A  revision  of  the  Apocrypha  was  no  part 
of  the  original  plan,  but  this  has  since  been  made, 
and  published  by  the  University  presses.  "  The  la- 
bor," say  the  Revisers,  "  has  been  great,  but  it  has 
been  given  ungrudgingly."  And  the  result  has  justi- 
fied the  effort. 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  121 

It  is  true,  the  Revision  has  been  sharply  criticised. 
To  some  the  changes  made — especially  in  the  New 
Testament — are  too  many,  and  the  alternative  read- 
ings too  often  noted.  Accuracy,  it  is  said,  has  been 
gained  at  too  great  a  cost  of  musical  cadences.105 
It  may  be  so.  But  those  whose  chief  care  is  to  know 
just  what  was  originally  written  will  agree  that  "  in 
translations  it  is  required  first,  as  Saint  Paul  says  of 
stewards,  { that  a  man  be  found  faithful/  not  musi- 
cal." And  all  who  revere  the  great  reviser  Jerome 
will  wish  to  remember  his  incisive  words  about  cer- 
tain Christians  of  his  day  who  "  mistook  ignorance 
for  piety " :  "If  they  do  not  like  the  water  from 
the  pure  fountain  head,  let  them  drink  of  the  muddy 
streams."  106 

(3)  Distinctive  Features 

The  results  of  this  revision  may  be  summarized  as 
follows : 

(a)  The  Old  Testament  text  is  still  the  "  Masso- 
retic,"  or  "  Received  Text,"  though  occasionally  cor- 
rected by  the  ancient  versions.     It  will  be  remem- 
bered that  this  means  that  our  present  English  Bibles 
in  the  Old  Testament  go  back  to  a  copy  of  the  date  of 
1009,  and  many  later  copies,  of  a  text  that  was  cur- 
rent in  the  second  century  A.D.      The   Septuagint, 
made  before  Christ,  and  other  ancient  versions,  it 
will  be  understood,  corroborate  the  main  substance  of 
this  text,  while  correcting  it  in  passages  where  they 
vary  from  it  considerably. 

(b)  The  New  Testament  text  has  been  corrected 


122  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

according  to  the  best  Greek  manuscripts,  particularly 
those  of  the  fourth  century  already  described.  The 
text  of  these  fourth  century  copies,  which  must,  of 
course,  have  been  older  than  the  copies,  belonged,  as 
we  have  seen,  to  the  ancient  Neutral  group.  Our 
Revised  New  Testament  is,  therefore,  closely  related 
to  the  New  Testament  writings  themselves.  Even 
that  part  of  it  that  may  still  claim  affinity  to  the 
Greek  received,  or  Antiochian,  text,  which  Tyndale 
and  his  immediate  successors  used,  though  later  than 
the  Neutral  type,  is  still  ancient.  To  say,  then,  that 
"  the  Protestant  Version  goes  back  only  to  the  days 
of  Henry  VIII  of  England,"  is  no  more  true  than  it 
would  be  to  say  that  the  Catholic  English  versions 
go  back  only  to  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  It  is 
estimated  that  the  text  of  the  Revisers  differs  from 
that  of  the  Version  of  1611  in  no  less  than  5,988 
readings.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  only 
about  one  fourth  of  these  involve  changes  in  the  sub- 
ject-matter; and  only  a  very  few  affect  the  sense 
largely.  The  meaning  of  passages  is  often  illuminat- 
ed by  this  return  to  a  more  correct  text.  A  spurious 
passage  here  and  there — like  I  John  V :  Tb,  8 a,  about 
the  "  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,"  retained  in  the 
King  James  and  Challoner-Douay  Versions  —  has 
been  dropped.  Many  small  interpolations  have  been 
removed,  and  doubtful  passages  marked  doubtful.107 
(c)  Mistranslations  have  been  corrected.  For  in- 
stance II  Kings  VIII :  13,  "  But  what,  is  thy  servant 
a  dog  that  he  should  do  this  great  thing  ?  "  is  correct- 
ed to,  "  But  what  is  thy  servant,  who  is  but  a  dog, 
that  he  should  do  this  great  thing  ? "  As  so  often, 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  123 

the  Challoner-Douay  translation  of  this  is  blind: 
"  But  what  am  I  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  I  should  do 
this  great  thing?"108 

(d)  Inexact    Translations    have    been    improved. 
Luke  III :  23,  "  And  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about 
thirty  years  of  age/'  corrected  to,  "  And  Jesus  him- 
self when  he  began  to  teach  was  about  thirty  .    .    ."  ; 
and   I   Corinthians    IV :  4,    "  For   I   know   nothing 
by   myself,"    corrected    to,    "  For    I    know   nothing 
against  myself,"  are  two  instances  out  of  many.     In 
these  two  passages  the  Challoner-Douay  Version  has, 
again,  literal  renderings  which  seem  dubious :  "  And 
Jesus  himself  was  beginning  about  the  age  of  thirty 
years ;  "  and  "  For  I  am  not  conscious  to  myself  of 
anything." 

(e)  The  rendering  of  Tenses  has  been  conformed 
more  exactly  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  uses.     Mark 
IV  :  37,    "  so   that   it    [the   ship]    was   now   full," 
changed  to,  "  insomuch  that  the  boat  was  now  fill- 
ing "  is  an  example  which  sailors  will  appreciate. 

(/)  A  few  of  the  many  Obsolete  Terms  have  been 
replaced  by  English  that  can  be  understood.  Two 
or  three  examples  are:  "  taches "  (by  "clasps"), 
"  wimples  "  (by  "  shawls  "),  "  cotes  "  (by  "  folds  "), 
"to  ear"  (by  "  to  plow"). 

(g)  Some  words  that  have  changed  their  meaning 
are  discarded  for  other  words  that  now  express  the  old 
sense.  Illustrations  are :  "  vagabond  "  (for  "  wan- 
derer"), "harness"  (for  "armor"),  "peep"  (for 
"  chirp  "),  "  conversation  "  (for  "  behavior  "),  "  car- 
riage "  (for  "  goods  "). 

(h)   Certain  Obscure  Phrases  have  been  clarified. 


124  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

For  instance:  I  Timothy  III:  13,  "For  they  that 
have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well  purchase  to  them- 
selves a  good  degree,"  is  translated,  "  For  they  that 
have  served  well  as  deacons  gain  to  themselves  a  good 
standing." 

(i)  Varieties  in  rendering  that  were  suggestive  of 
differences  not  in  the  Greek  have  been  made  uniform. 
For  example,  John  XV,  "  abide  "  throughout :  not 
sometimes  "  abide,"  sometimes  "  continue  " — so  miss- 
ing the  intended  emphasis  of  repetition. 

(/)  Religious  Poems,,  such  as  the  Psalms  and  Ex- 
odus XV — "  I  will  sing  unto  the  Lord,  for  he  hath 
triumphed  gloriously " — are  printed,  not  as  prose, 
but  as  poetry.  One  could  wish  that  this  principle 
had  been  extended  to  the  suitable  printing  of  prose 
discourse  and  quotations. 

(fc)  The  sense  of  passages  is  preserved  through  the 
abolition  of  the  often  misleading  Chapter  and  Verse 
Division,  and  the  introduction  of  symmetrical  group- 
ings, as  in  the  '  Six  Woes  ?  of  Isaiah  V,  and  the 
'  Seven  Epistles '  of  Revelation  II  and  III. 

(Z)  The  frequently  misleading  Chapter  Headings 
of  the  Authorized  Version  are  abolished,  and  italics 
are  used  only  when  real  additions  have  been  made  to 
the  original  language,  to  complete  the  sense. 

It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  incompleteness  in 
this  work,  due  chiefly  to  the  English  conservative 
fear  of  change ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any 
fair-minded  person  can  fail  to  recognize  the  vast 
superiority  of  the  English  Revised  Version  over  all 
others  that  had  preceded  it.109  Through  it  all  there 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  125 

is  evident  "  the  sincere  desire  "  of  tlie  Revisers  "  to 
give  to  modern  readers  a  faithful  representation  of 
the  meaning  of  the  original  documents."  110 

2.  THE  AMERICAN  STANDARD  EDITION 

The  history  of  the  American  Standard  Edition  of 
the  Revised  Version  is  contained  largely  in  the  his- 
tory of  its  predecessors,  which  has  been  given.111 
It  is  a  recension  of  the  Revised  Version  of  1881-85, 
not  a  distinct  revision.  Of  course,  therefore,  its 
text  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  English  Revised  Ver- 
sion. In  translation,  it  is  believed  to  inherit  all  that 
was  good  in  that  version.  It  also  presents  several 
marked  improvements. 

(1)  Its  Origin  and  Scope 

As  the  origin  of  the  Revision  of  1881  was  with  the 
English  translators,  so  the  deciding  vote  in  respect  of 
questions  raised  in  the  work  of  revision  was  theirs.112 
The  American  Committee,  while  fulfilling  their 
promise  to  refrain  from  any  similar  publication  for 
fourteen  years,  continued  its  work,  and  in  1901  pub- 
lished this  American  Edition.  In  this  their  preferred 
readings,  published  in  appendices  in  the  English 
Revised  Version,  with  others  which  the  haste  of  the 
English  publishers  and  a  fear  of  too  great  apparent 
disagreement  had  previously  ruled  out  of  the  appen- 
dices, were  incorporated  in  the  body  of  the  text.  In 
the  Old  Testament  other  changes  in  translation, 
judged  to  be  obviously  for  the  better,  were  added.113 


126  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(2)  Its  Distinctive  Features 

The  student  will  find  the  distinctive  features  of 
the  American  Revised  Version  to  be  as  follows : 

(a)  A  few  incorrect  or  Incomplete  Translations 
have  been  corrected.    Job  XIX :  26  is  an  illustration. 
The  English  Revision  has: 

And  after  my  skin  hath  been  thus  destroyed, 

Yet  from  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God: 

Whom  I  shall  see  for  myself, 

And  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another. 
The  Challoner-Douay,  still  following  what  Gigot 
(Catholic)    calls  the  most  striking  instance  of  Je- 
rome's dogmatic  bias  (see  Ch.  ii,  Note  39)  has: 

And  I  shall  be  clothed  again  with  my  skin, 

and  in  my  flesh,  etc.  (as  above). 
The  American  Revision  translates  this : 
And  after  my  skin,  even  this  body,  is  destroyed, 
Then  without  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God ; 
Whom  I,  even  I,  shall  see,  on  my  side, 
And  mine  eyes  shall  behold  and  not  as  a  stranger.114 

(b)  Many  Obsolete  Words  have  been  put  into  in- 
telligible English.     The  English  Revisers  "  thought 
it  no  part  of  their  duty  to  reduce  the  Authorized 
Version  to  conformity  with  modern  usage.'7 115     The 
American  Revisers  have  counted  it  of  first  impor- 
tance that  the  English  Bible  should  be  plain  enough 
to  be  understood  by  all  intelligent  persons.     It  may 
well  be  doubted  whether,  in  a  company  of  American 
people   of   average   intelligence   and   education,   ten 
per  cent  would  know  the  meaning  of  the  following 
words ;    "  minish/'    "  chapiter,"    "  ouches,"    "  sith," 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  127 

"  straitness,"  "  chapmen,"  "  wot,"  "  poll  thee."  In 
their  places  the  American  Revised  Version  gives: 
"  diminish,"  "  capital,"  "  settings,"  "  since,"  "  dis- 
tress," "  traders,"  "  know,"  "  cut  off  thy  hair." 

(c)  A  more  complete  exchange  has  been  made  of 
words  still  in  use  but  bearing  an  altered  meaning,  for 
words  that  now  express  the  sense  of  the  Bible  writers. 
Examples  of  this  class  of  words  in  the  English  Re- 
vision, with  their  modern  substitutes  in  the  Ameri- 
can Revision,   are:   "fray"    ("frighten"),  "tell" 
("number"),     "clouted"     ("patched"),     "hale" 
("drag"),  "delicates"  ("delicacies"),  "charger" 
("platter"),  "cunning"   ("skill"),  "let"  ("hin- 
der"),    "sod"     ("boiled"),     "turtle"     ("turtle- 
dove  "),  "  reins  "  ("  heart  "—literally,  "  kidneys  "). 

(d)  Certain  uncouth,  unidiomatic  or  Obscure  Ex- 
pressions existing  in  the  Authorized  Version,  despite 
the  general  excellence  of  its  English,  were  allowed  to 
remain  in  the  English  Revision.     These  have  been 
greatly  improved  in  the  American  Revised  Version. 
For  instance :  I  Kings  XXII :  5,  "  inquire  for  the 
word,"    instead    of    "  inquire    at    the    word,"    and 
Deuteronomy  XXXII :  14,  "  with  the  finest  of  the 
wheat,"  instead  of,  "  with  the  fat  of  kidneys  of  the 
wheat." 

(e)  The  Grammar  has  been  improved,  making  the 
sense  of  Scripture  more  real  and  clear.     "  Who  "  and 
"  that "  are  used  instead  of  "  which,"  when  referring 
to  persons,  as  in  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven  " ; 
and  "  a  "  has  been  substituted  for  "  an  "  before  the 
aspirated  "  h  " — an  appropriate  thing  in  this  country 
where  people  pronounce  their  initial  "  h's.," 


128  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(/)  Names  of  a  special  character  have  been  more 
faithfully  rendered.  The  name  Jehovah,  expressive 
of  the  thought  of  God  as  the  ever-present  and  cove- 
nant-keeping God,  although  itself  a  compromise  form, 
is,  at  least,  better  than  the  wholly  unjustifiable 
"  Lord."  "  Lord,"  in  this  use  of  the  word,  is  a  leg- 
acy of  a  late  Jewish  superstition  against  uttering  the 
divine  Name. 

(g)  A  few  words  that  are  now  objectionable  to 
decently  refined  taste  are  found  in  the  Challoner- 
Douay  and  King  James  Versions,  and  were  unfor- 
tunately retained  by  English  conservatism.  In  the 
American  Revision  these  give  place  to  refined  words, 
which  in  some  cases  really  reproduce  the  original  bet- 
ter than  the  now  coarser  words.  Jeremiah  IV:  19, 
"  My  bowels,  my  bowels,"  becomes,  "  My  heart,  my 
heart " ;  for  it  is  precisely  such  English  use  of 
the  word  "  heart "  that  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew 
thought  of  the  "  bowels  "  as  the  seat  of  the  affections. 
Other  instances  are:  Isaiah  LXIII:  15,  John  XI: 
39,  Philippians  III:  8. 

(h)  In  a  few  passages,  most  of  them  comparatively 
unimportant,  the  American  Revisers  judged  it  better 
to  return  to  the  translation  of  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. 

(i)  The  English  Revisers  prudently  omitted  the 
old  chapter  headings  and  page  headlines  altogether, 
rather  than  amend  them.  With  a  lame  apology,  the 
English  New  Testament  Revisers  allowed  the  titles 
of  books  to  stand  unrevised.  In  both  cases  the  Ameri- 
can Revisers  have  rendered  a  positive  service:  first, 


SECOND  PRIZE  ESSAY  129 

by  inserting  headlines  drawn  largely  from  the  biblical 
text,  to  guide  in  reading,  yet  "  avoid  as  far  as  possible 
all  precommitments,  whether  doctrinal  or  exegeti- 
cal " ;  and,  second,  in  conforming  the  titles  to  the 
ancient  manuscripts,  so  that  we  are  not  led  to  think 
that  Matthew  the  tax-collector  was  called  Saint  Mat- 
thew in  his  day,  or  that  the  Apostle  Paul  wrote  the 
Letter  to  the  Hebrews,  when  it  is  almost  certain  that 
he  did  not.116 

(/)  Paragraphs  have  been  shortened,  making  un- 
derstanding of  a  passage  easier,  punctuation  has  been 
corrected,  and  spelling  has  been  made  to  agree  more 
consistently  with  the  current  orthography.  There  is 
no  good  reason,  in  this  country  at  least,  for  spelling 
jubilee,  for  instance,  jubile ;  show,  shew ;  or  thorough- 
ly as  if  it  were  "  throughly." 

Perfection  is  not  claimed  for  this  Version;  but  it 
is  safe  to  say  that  nearly  all,  if  not  all,  of  these  im- 
provements justify  the  aim  and  belief  of  the  Ameri- 
can Revisers,  that  their  edition  of  the  Bible  would 
"  on  the  one  hand  bring  a  plain  reader  more  closely 
into  contact  with  the  exact  thought  of  the  sacred 
writers  than  any  version  now  current  in  Christen- 
dom, and  on  the  other  hand  prove  itself  especially 
serviceable  to  students  of  the  Word."  117>  118 


DIAGRAM   i 
SOURCES   OF  THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE 


BEFJDRE    HRIST. 


ton  A.n    \ 


OLO^ATiN^OTHEt?       HEBREW^SREEK  MSS. 


RE    . 

AMERICAN] 


SEQ- 
REVISED' 


(The  solid  line,  as  distinguished  from  the  dotted  line,  shows  about  how  far 
back  the  oldest  extant  copies  go.) 


DIAGRAM  2 

TYPICAL    KINDS    OF    NEW   TESTA 
MENT    MANUSCRIPTS 


A-D 

10D 


3  OIL 


Ann 


SDH 


600 


isno 


ibon 


nnn 


IEOO 


1900 


Clementina 


Illustrating  the  history  of  the   several  groups    of  "Texts" 
and  their  relation  to  our  English  Versions. 

*  Textual  basis  of  the  Rheims  Version,  Challoner  had  Clementine  edition. 
|      u          it     u   u     Tyndale,  Genevan,  Bishops',  and  Authorized  Versions. 
J      "          "     "  "    English- American  Revision. 


DIAGRAM  3 

TABULAR  VIEW 

OFTHE 

ENGLISH  VERSION'S  OFTHCBIBIE. 


no-no. 


Chief  Enalish  Sources!  ghirf  Sources  ifflierlhaghttofr 


*-l$  Hnglo-Soxon  and  Old  Eng- 
1  t'sh  paraphrases,  of  Iiospels  , 


Ldii?Vuld|cEfe, 


Bible. 


Tynddles  Peritofeach  ant 


Ecasmos  Latin  N.T. 
Luther's  irc 


Gbvcrdalcs  Bible. 


lndales  NT.. 


Zurich. 


yndcLles  'A  O.T. 

Covodalcs  %  O.T. 

nelQ.les    N.T, 


"Maithec^s." 


eDccix,  e 
Gme  K  .  «  «  rf 
Erasmus'  ted  ia 


Tax/emei'S. 


Sft»n?  as  above. 


LaTi  m  Vulgate. 
Era.sm.us'  fff  eek  NT. 


O.T.  f 


The?  "Bishos' 


Bible 


He  breu?  and  GureeK> 


im^-  Dooa. 


ne  van 


<""*)3ishofe 


'  Hebrew 
Ialin.. 
Tremellius'lat 


Enlish 


lin  Jame  s'Autiio  n'r 


Deceived."  Hebrettf'. 
HntfuriTG^cek  N.T  MS.S 
^ncie»i1  ana  Modem  Vtr&io*& 


Erifclfsh  )e\/i"sc<i 


DIAGRAM  4 


CONSTITUENT    PARTS   OF   THE   VUL- 
GATE, AND   THEIR   SOURCES 


ll 


THE 

LATIN-VULGATE 


TESTAMENT. 


THE 

LATIN  VULGATE 


TESTAMENT. 


THE   ORIGIN  AND  HISTOEY  OF  THE 
VERSION  OF  THE  BIBLE  AUTHOR- 
IZED BY  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH,  AND  OF  THE  AMER- 
ICAN REVISED  VERSION 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY 
BY  OHAELES  B.  DALTON 


THE   ORIGIN  AND  HISTOEY  OF  THE 
VERSION  OF  THE  BIBLE  AUTHOR- 
IZED  BY  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH,  AND  OF  THE  AMER- 
ICAN REVISED   VERSION 


CHAPTER  I 
INTRODUCTORY 

"  IF  God  spares  my  life,"  said  William  Tyndale, 
"  ere  many  years  I  will  cause  a  boy  that  driveth  a 
plow  to  know  more  of  the  Scriptures  than  the  Pope 
does !  "  That  this  was  no  idle  boast,  the  story  of 
Tyndale' s  life  and  work  well  shows,  and  time  has  so 
multiplied  versions  of  the  Bible  that  it  has  now  been 
translated  into  about  two  hundred  and  sixty  of  the 
languages  spoken  throughout  the  world.  Thus  has 
the  miracle  of  the  day  of  Pentecost  been  extended  to 
our  own  day,  so  that  we  hear  '  every  man  in  his  own 
tongue  wherein  he  was  born  the  wonderful  works  of 
God.' 

The  labors  of  the  noble  men  who  at  the  cost  often 
of  their  liberty  have  accomplished  this  result  form 
a  story  full  of  living  interest,  and  it  is  the  purpose 
of  this  essay  to  tell  so  much  of  that  story  as  relates 
the  origin  and  history  of 

137 


138  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

1.  The  version  of  the  Bible  authorized  by  the 
Catholic  Church. 

2.  The  version  of  the  Bible  known  as  the  Revised 
Version,  American  Standard  Edition. 

The  original  manuscripts  of  the  Bible  constitute 
theoretically  the  origin  of  all  Bible  versions.  These 
original  manuscripts,  however,  have  been  lost,  leaving 
for  such  version  work  as  is  here  under  consideration 
later  manuscript  copies  of  the  originals,  to  which  are 
to  be  added  early  translations  into  other  languages, 
known  as  "  ancient  versions  "  and  quotations  by  the 
early  Christian  Fathers. 

The  only  version  authorized  for  use  by  the  Catholic 
Church  is  the  Vulgate,  a  Latin  translation  completed 
405  A.D.  The  English  translation  of  the  Vulgate 
which  may  be  used  by  Catholics  is  known  as  the 
"  Douay  Version." 

Tyndale  was  the  first  Englishman  who  translated 
directly  from  the  original  languages,  and  from  him, 
through  the  Bibles  of  Coverdale  and  Eogers,  the 
Great  Bible,  the  Genevan,  the  Bishops',  and  the 
Authorized,  we  come  to  the  first  version  which  com- 
bined ancient  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  and  pa- 
tristic quotations — the  Anglo-American  Revision. 

The  history  of  the  Douay  Version  is,  therefore, 
that  of  the  Vulgate  and  the  translations  into  English 
made  from  it;  while  the  history  of  the  Eevised 
Version  is  that  of  the  original  sources,  from  which 
the  text  is  derived,  and  the  translations  into  English 
from  the  time  of  Tyndale  to  the  present  date.1 


DIAGRAM  i 


THE  HOLY  BIBLE 


Old  Testament  writ- 
ten in  Hebrew 


The  New  Testament 


Between 
1200  B.C. 
and 
200  B.C. 


written  in  Greek 


Gospels  before 
70  A.D. 

Epistles  be- 
tween 51  A.D. 
and  67  A.D. 

The  Book  of 
the  Revelation 
96  A.D. 


Collected  in  one  book  325  A.D. 
Original  manuscripts  now  lost 
represented  by 


Manuscripts 


Hebrew 


Greek 


'^ui^n  vjn.«_n.  Quotations  by  Versions  in  sev-\     Thg 

oldest  916  A.D.   oldest  4th  century  early  Chris-      eral     languages,  (  Vulgate 


tian  Fathers      one  of  the  most 


•  •  \         T" 

important  being  |     A 


405 


The  Revised  Version 


The  Douay 
Bible 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  BIBLE 

WHAT  is  the  Bible  ?  It  is  a  collection  of  books  by 
many  authors,  who  wrote  as  "  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance,"  during  a  period  of  about  fourteen  hun- 
dred years,  known  also  as  the  "  Scriptures  "  or  "  Sa- 
cred Writings,"  or  in  Anglo-Saxon  as  "  Holy  Writ/' 
and  aptly  called  by  Jerome  "  The  Divine  Library." 
In  other  words  it  is  the  inspired  Word  of  God  given 
to  us  through  human  writers. 

As  Protestants  generally  receive  it,  the  Bible  con- 
sists of  the  Old  Testament,  containing  thirty-nine 
books  (accepted  as  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  Jews 
also),  and  the  New  Testament,  containing  twenty- 
seven  books. 

These  books  are  all  accepted  by  the  Protestant 
churches  as  "  canonical,"  that  is,  as  the  collection  of 
the  authoritative  books  of  the  church. 

The  Catholic  Church  accepts  as  canonical  all  these 
books,  and  with  them  others  called  by  Protestants 
"  The  Apocrypha  " — a  word  which  means  '  hidden.' 

These  books  are:  Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  Ecclesi- 
asticus,  Baruch,  I  and  II  Maccabees,  An  addition  to 
the  Book  of  Esther,  The  Song  of  the  Three  Children, 
The  Story  of  Susanna,  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  the  last 
three  constituting  additions  to  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

140 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  141 

They  are  of  minor  importance,  are  often  printed 
with  the  Protestant  Bible,  and  can,  therefore,  be  read 
by  anyone  who  wishes  to  do  so.  They  are  not,  we  are 
informed  on  good  authority,2  applied  by  the  Catholic 
Church  to  establish  any  doctrine,  except  in  the  pas- 
sage where  it  is  stated  "  that  it  is  a  holy  and  whole- 
some thought  to  pray  for  the  dead,"  and  in  others 
held  by  them  to  be  applicable  in  praise  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary.3  As,  however,  the  Catholic  Church 
relies  on  texts  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible  to  support 
these  doctrines,  there  are  no  special  doctrinal  reasons 
for  her  reckoning  the  Apocrypha  as  canonical.  There 
is,  therefore,  no  substantial  difference  between  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants  as  to  what  is  contained  in  the 
Bible.* 

The  main  question  is  then  the  comparative  merits 
of  the  Douay  and  the  Revised  Versions  as  presenta- 
tions to  the  reader  of  the  thought  and  language  of 
the  inspired  writings  of  the  Bible  rendered  into  the 
English  language. 

Father  Early  in  his  letter  says :  "  I  take  this  op- 
portunity of  correcting  an  erroneous  assertion  con- 
tained in  the  end  of  your  note,  and  which  so  many 
non-Catholics,  knowingly  or  otherwise  I  do  not  say, 
persist  in  falsely  asserting  and  spreading,  namely: 
'  The  Church  you  represent  discourages  the  reading 
of  the  Scriptures  by  the  people.'  The  Catholic 
Church  has  never  prohibited  any  of  her  members 

*  Any  reader  who  wishes  to  go  more  fully  into  this  branch  of  the 
subject  will  find  in  the  Appendix  a  summary  of  the  arguments 
for  and  against  the  inclusion  of  the  Apocrypha  in  the  canon.  (*). 


142  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

reading  the  Scriptures  or  Bible.  In  every  family 
whose  means  will  permit  the  buying  of  a  copy,  there 
you  will  find  the  authentic  version  of  God's  words  as 
authorized  by  the  Church,  and  which  has  come  down 
to  us  unchanged  from  the  time  of  Christ  himself.  But 
the  Catholic  Church  does  object  to  the  reading  of  the 
Protestant  version,  which  goes  back  only  to  the  days 
of  Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  was  then  gotten 
up  for  obvious  reasons.  Neither  will  the  Catholic 
Church  allow  private  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, for  then  there  would  be  as  many  interpretations 
as  there  are  men  and  women  whose  interests  or 
passions  would  suggest." 

We  can  at  once  dispose  of  that  part  of  the  letter 
which  refers  to  the  reading  of  the  Bible  by  the  in- 
dividual or  family  in  private,  and  for  this  purpose 
we  quote  from  a  pastoral  letter  issued  by  the  Third 
Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,  1884:  "It  can  hardly 
be  necessary  for  us  to  remind  you  that  the  most  high- 
ly valued  treasure  of  every  family  library  and  the 
most  frequently  and  lovingly  made  use  of  should  be 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  We  hope  that  no  family  can  be 
found  amongst  us  without  a  correct  version  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Among  other  versions  we  recom- 
mend the  Douay,  which  is  venerable  as  used  by  our 
forefathers  for  three  centuries,  which  comes  down  to 
us  sanctioned  by  innumerable  authorizations,  and 
which  was  suitably  annotated  by  the  learned  Bishop 
Challoner,  by  Canon  Haydock,  and  especially  by  the 
late  Archbishop  Kenrick."  5 

This  Council  governs  the  actions  of  Catholics  in 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  143 

the  United  States,  and  the  quotation  given  is  suf- 
ficient proof  of  the  practice  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  this  matter.  The  correctness  of  Father  Early's 
other  statements  can  only  be  tested  by  a  study  of  the 
history  of  the  two  versions  and  of  the  sources  from, 
which  they  are  derived. 


CHAPTEK  III 

THE  MANUSCRIPTS,  VERSIONS,  AND  QUOTATIONS 

IN  dealing  with  ancient  writings  the  first  inquiry 
is  directed  toward  obtaining  the  most  accurate  text 
possible  of  the  original. 

The  language  of  the  Old  Testament  is  Hebrew  (ex- 
cepting certain  passages  in  Aramaic) ;  6  of  the  New 
Testament,  Greek.  Hebrew  was  the  language  of  the 
Jews.  At  the  date  when  the  New  Testament  was 
wrritten  the  Jews  had  wandered  far  and  wide,  and 
spoke  in  Greek,  the  language  of  the  countries  they 
lived  in,  forming  thus  a  Jewish-Greek  dialect,  which 
colors  much  of  the  Greek  in  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  written.7 

The  original  manuscripts  have  all  disappeared. 
Many  of  the  Old  Testament  manuscripts  were  de- 
stroyed during  the  frequent  exiles  and  numerous  per- 
secutions of  the  Jews.  But  the  Jews  themselves  are 
partly  responsible  for  their  destruction.  In  each  syna- 
gogue they  set  apart  one  room  called  the  Geniza, 
where  torn  and  mutilated  copies  were  stored.  The 
contents  were  from  time  to  time  burned  to  prevent 
their  application  to  common  uses.  There  are,  how- 
ever, a  large  number  of  Hebrew  manuscripts — thir- 
teen or  fourteen  hundred — still  preserved,  of  which 
the  oldest  is  dated  916  A.D. 

144 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  145 

The  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  ~New  Testament 
suffered  in  persecutions  against  Christians  in  the 
early  days  of  the  church,  but  we  have  access  to  more 
than  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  uncials — so-called 
from  a  Latin  word  meaning  '  an  inch ' — written  in 
capital  letters,  and  about  two  thousand  five  hundred 
cursives — so  called  from  a  Latin  word  meaning  (  run- 
ning ' — written  like  modern  handwriting.  The  un- 
cials are  the  oldest,  dating  back  in  the  most  ancient 
copy  extant  to  the  fourth  century  A.D. 

To  secure  circulation  of  a  book  in  ancient  times, 
when  these  Greek  and  Hebrew  manuscripts  were 
written,  was  no  easy  matter.  Every  copy  had  to  be 
made  by  hand  at  a  great  expenditure  of  time  and 
trouble,  and  often  too  with  a  loss  of  accuracy.  If  the 
reader  will  copy  out  a  few  pages  of  any  modern  book, 
have  his  manuscript  copied  by  a  friend,  and  continue 
the  process  through  five  or  six  copyings,  and  then 
compare  the  last  manuscript  with  the  printed  book, 
he  will  see  how  easily  mistakes  can  be  made.  Errors 
are  not  uncommon  even  in  printed  books,  with  proofs 
carefully  examined.  A  well  known  instance  occurs 
in  one  edition  of  the  Authorized  Version,  where 
King  David  is  made  to  say  (Psalm  CXIX:  161), 
"  Printers  have  persecuted  me  without  a  cause,"  a 
form  of  persecution  from  which  he  at  any  rate  was 
free. 

The  Hebrew  alphabet  also  made  possible  variations 
in  the  text.  Originally  it  consisted  of  consonants 
only.  Later,  in  the  Christian  era,  marks  were  added 
to  the  letters  to  represent  vowel  sounds.  Even  these 


146  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

marks  were  sometimes  omitted  in  manuscripts  written 
for  use  in  the  synagogues.8  How  easily,  in  these 
circumstances,  mistakes  could  be  made  can  be  seen 
in  an  example  from  the  English  language.  Thus  if 
we  adopted  the  Hebrew  method,  the  letters  B  E  N 
might  be  read, 
BEN,  BE  1ST,  BEN,  BEN  BEN 

a  o  u  i    y,         a         ey, 

and  in  several  other  ways. 

The  Greek  alphabet,  on  the  other  hand,  has  both 
vowels  and  consonants,  and  this  particular  liability  to 
error  is  not  present  in  the  New  Testament  manu- 
scripts; but  both  Hebrew  and  Greek  manuscripts 
were  frequently  written  without  any  division  between 
the  words,  and  a  word  might  easily  be  wrongly 
divided.  Mr.  Paterson  Smyth  (Old  Documents  and 
the  New  Bible),  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for 
the  illustration  on  vowel  points,  gives  a  striking  ex- 
ample of  a  mistake  thus  made  in  the  story  of  the 
infidel  who  wrote  over  his  bed :  "  God  is  nowhere." 
This  was  read  by  his  little  boy  as  "  God  is  now  here." 

Sometimes,  again,  copyists  took  liberties  with  the 
text  and  amended  them  on  their  own  authority. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  how  easily  mistakes  could 
arise,  and  in  all  old  texts  variations  are  sure  to  occur 
from  these  causes.  The  genuine  text  of  Shakespeare, 
comparatively  a  modern  work,  is  uncertain  in  many 
places.  Still  more  is  this  likely  to  be  the  case  with 
the  text  of  the  Bible,  written  two  or  three  thousand 
years  ago,  and  of  which  no  original  manuscript  is 
in  existence. 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  147 

Nevertheless,  in  the  Bible  we  have  a  more  correct 
text  than  that  of  any  other  ancient  book.  In  the 
case  of  the  Old  Testament  this  is  due  to  the  pre- 
cautions taken  by  the  Jews  to  make  the  errors  as  few 
as  possible.  The  plan  they  adopted  was  as  follows: 
One  writer  copied  the  consonants,  another  put  in 
the  vowel  points  and  accents,  while  the  whole  was 
scrupulously  revised  by  a  third,  and  notes  on  the  text 
inserted  by  a  fourth.  In  addition  to  these  precau- 
tions they  invented  an  elaborate  system  to  secure  the 
text  from  error  or  corruption,  guarded  by  rules  of 
almost  painful  minuteness,  and  called  the  "  Masso- 
rah."  These  rules  included  a  count  of  the  number  of 
letters,  words,  and  verses  in  each  book  and  a  note  of 
the  middle  verse,  word,  and  letter.  The  men  who 
during  hundreds  of  years  elaborated  the  system  are 
known  as  the  "  Massoretes/7  and  the  "  Received 
Text "  of  the  Old  Testament  is  from  these  circum- 
stances known  as  the  "  Massoretic  Text."  9  The  re- 
sult is  that  whatever  variations  may  have  crept  in  are 
verbal  only,  the  value  of  the  substance  has  never  been 
touched,  and  the  "  Massoretic  Text "  is  generally  re- 
ceived as  the  authentic  Word  of  God. 

Though  no  such  system  as  the  Massoretic  was  used 
for  preserving  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
existing  manuscripts  are  much  nearer  the  date  of 
the  originals,  and  must  have  passed  through  fewer 
hands.  Moreover,  the  peculiar  form  of  writing  and 
similar  causes  which  led  to  variations  in  the  Hebrew 
text  were  not  present  in  the  case  of  the  Greek,  and  a 
comparison  of  the  different  manuscripts  show  the 


148  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

variations  for  the  most  part  to  be  of  trifling  im- 
portance. 

Thus  we  still  have  ample  material  for  ascertaining 
the  true  text  of  Scripture  from  the  existing  manu- 
scripts, and  the  loss  of  the  originals  is  in  a  great 
measure  made  up  by  the  existence  of  translations  into 
other  languages,  or,  as  they  are  called,  "  versions." 
There  are  several  of  these,  some  of  earlier  date  than 
the  existing  manuscripts,  such  as  the  Syriac  and  the 
Latin,  both  of  which  originated  in  the  second  century. 

To  the  testimony  of  the  manuscripts  and  versions 
we  must  add  that  of  quotations  of  the  Bible  by  early 
Christian  writers.  Though  neither  versions  nor  quo- 
tations are  of  the  same  value  as  manuscripts,  both  are 
often  invaluable  in  giving  them  support  and  in  ascer- 
taining the  true  reading. 


CHAPTER  IV 
How  TO  ASCERTAIN  THE  TRUE  TEXT  OF  THE  BIBLE 

THE  discovery  and  correction  of  errors  in  the  text 
of  any  ancient  document  is  a  branch  of  learning  to 
which  much  attention  has  been  paid  in  recent  years, 
and  which  is  known  as  "  textual  criticism." 

In  the  sense  in  which  we  use  that  expression  it  in- 
volves the  textual  study  and  comparison  of  all  docu- 
ments which  throw  light  on  the  text  of  the  Bible. 

The  rules  which  govern  it  may  be  shortly  sum- 
marized as  follows :  1.  The  earliest  manuscripts  are 
most  likely  to  be  correct,  as  they  have  not  passed 
through  so  many  hands  as  those  later  in  date.  2.  The 
true  reading  is  that  contained  in  the  majority  of 
manuscripts,  if  all  are  of  the  same  authority.  3.  But 
as  all  are  not  of  the  same  authority,  the  origin 
and  history  of  each  have  to  be  considered.  The  work 
of  a  critic  in  ascertaining  the  correct  text  of  a  pas- 
sage, say  in  the  K"ew  Testament,  would  therefore  in- 
volve not  merely  a  search  for  the  oldest  Greek  manu- 
scripts containing  the  passage  but  a  comparison  of 
the  values  of  the  text  which  these  manuscripts  repre- 
sent, which  would  point  to  the  reading  of  the  passage 
most  likely  to  be  correct.  In  addition  to  this  the 
ancient  versions  would  have  to  be  consulted  and  the 
value  of  the  text  they  represent  considered;  while 
quotations  from  the  early  Fathers  would  have  to  be 

149 


150  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

referred  to  and  their  value  carefully  taken  into  ac- 
count. 

Important  discoveries  of  new  manuscripts  have 
been  made  during  the  last  century,  especially  that  of 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  and  it  is  only  in  recent  years 
that  the  science  of  textual  criticism  has  been  fully 
developed,  and  the  resources  at  the  disposal  of  the 
critic  arranged  in  an  accessible  form. 

Even  with  these  advantages,  however,  the  work  is 
by  no  means  a  simple  one.  It  requires  a  mind  skilled 
in  weighing  evidence,  trained  in  the  study  of 
manuscripts  and  in  the  detection  of  errors  which 
they  contain,  and  above  all  reverent  to  God,  and 
anxious  in  all  humility  to  find,  as  far  as  human 
means  can  do  so,  what  is  the  true  text  of  the  in- 
spired Word. 

The  history  of  the  two  Versions,  the  Douay  and 
the  Revised,  will  show  what  use  has  been  made  of 
the  wealth  of  material  now  accessible.  The  reader 
will  be  able  to  judge  in  each  case  whether  the  best 
methods  of  criticism  have  been  adopted,  whether 
every  available  source  of  information  has  been  util- 
ized, and  in  which  version  the  greater  care  has  been 
taken  to  ascertain  the  true  text.10 


CHAPTEE  V 

THE  VULGATE 

THE  only  version  authorized  by  the  Catholic 
Church — the  Vulgate — is  a  translation  of  the  Bible 
made  by  Jerome  between  387  A.D.  and  405  A.D. 

This  name  (Latin,  Vulgata  = t  common  ')  was 
given  to  it  because  it  had  become  by  about  600  A.D. 
the  version  of  the  Bible  commonly  used  in  western 
Europe,  and  to-day  the  Prayer-book  of  the  English- 
speaking  Episcopal  churches  contains  two  transla- 
tions from  it — the  Benedicite  and  the  Psalter,  trans- 
lated by  Coverdale. 

As  Christianity  spread  westward,  where  there  was 
little  knowledge  of  Greek,  and  less  of  Hebrew,  a 
version  in  Latin  became  necessary.  More  than  one 
was  made,  and  as  copies  had  to  be  multiplied  by 
hand,  and  were  altered  to  agree  with  local  dialect,  a 
corruption  of  the  text  was  unavoidable.  Errors  also 
arose  from  attempts  of  copyists  to  improve  the  text 
instead  of  strictly  following  it.  In  order  to  secure 
a  correct  and  uniform  text  Pope  Damasus  in  382 
A.D.  commissioned  Jerome  to  revise  the  existing 
Latin  version. 

In  carrying  out  this  great  work  Jerome  trans- 
lated the  entire  Old  Testament  and  a  portion  of  the 
Apocrypha  from  the  Hebrew,  and  corrected  the  ex- 

151 


152  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

isting  Latin  text  of  the  New  Testament  from  the 
best  Greek  manuscripts  which  he  could  find. 

Jerome's  work  is  especially  valuable  as  a  wit- 
ness to  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  text  in  manu- 
scripts of  greater  antiquity  than  any  we  now  pos- 
sess.11 It  gradually  gained  ground  from  its  own 
intrinsic  merit,  and  through  the  growing  influence  of 
the  Church  of  Home,  and  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years  it  was  the  origin  of  all  translations  of  the 
Scriptures  in  western  Europe.12 

Several  revisions  of  the  Vulgate  wyere  made,  but 
no  special  authority  was  given  to  it  by  the  Catholic 
Church  before  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  in 
1546.  To  quote  the  words  of  a  Catholic  writer 
(Waterworth,  Council  of  Trent,  Preface,  p.  Ixxxix, 
pp.  19,  20),  this  Council,  regarding  "the  great  va- 
riety of  translations  current  in  the  church  an  evil 
to  be  remedied,  decreed  that  the  old  and  Vulgate 
edition  be  held  as  authentic,  as  being  the  most 
ancient,  the  most  used,  as  representing  more  correct- 
ly the  state  of  the  ancient  copies  of  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  Scriptures  than  any  other  Latin  version, 
or  even  probably  than  any  other  then  or  now  existing 
Greek  or  Hebrew  edition,  and,  finally,  as  having  been 
prepared  ages  before  the  modern  disputes  and,  there- 
fore, unbiased  by  them."  The  decree  further  de- 
clared that  "  if  any  one  receives  not  as  sacred  and 
canonical "  all  the  books  therein  contained,  which 
include  the  Apocrypha,  "  let  him  be  anathema." 
Further,  the  Council,  "  seeing  clearly  that  truth  and 
discipline  are  contained  in  the  written  books  and 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  153 

the  unwritten  traditions,  .  .  .  receives  and  venerates 
with  an  equal  affection  of  piety  and  reverence  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  ...  as  also 
the  said  traditions,  as  well  those  pertaining  to  faith 
as  to  morals,  as  having  been  dictated  either  by 
Christ's  own  word  of  mouth  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  preserved  in  the  Catholic  Church  by  a  continu- 
ous succession." 

An  edition  of  the  Vulgate  had  to  be  determined 
upon  as  the  authentic  version  mentioned  in  the  de- 
cree; and,  after  Pope  Sixtus  V  had  published  one, 
which,  though  declared  by  him  to  be  "  authentic," 
was  found  to  be  very  faulty,  and  was  recalled,  Clem- 
ent VIII  issued  an  edition,  which  "  from  that  time 
forward  (sometimes  under  the  name  of  Clement, 
sometimes  under  that  of  Sixtus,  sometimes  under 
both  names)  has  been  the  standard  edition  of  the 
Roman  Church.  By  the  Bull  of  1592  every  edition 
must  be  assimilated  to  this  one,  no  word  of  the  text 
may  be  altered,  nor  even  variant  readings  printed  in 
the  margin."  Every  authorized  edition  of  the  Vul- 
gate subsequently  published  has  had  the  approval  of 
the  Pope  who  at  the  time  occupied  the  chair  of 
Peter  at  Rome.13 

The  approval  given  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  a 
plenary  or  ecumenical  Council  of  the  whole  church, 
has  been  confirmed  by  another  similar  Council,  that 
of  the  Vatican,  held  in  1870.14  Such  an  approval 
is  the  highest  which  the  church  can  give,  the  next 
in  weight  being  that  of  the  Congregation  of  the 
Index  or  Rites  at  Rome. 


154  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

The  church  being  catholic  for  all  nations  and  all 
time,  no  one  version  could  be  authorized  other  than 
the  Vulgate  for  all  the  different  languages  spoken 
throughout  the  Christian  world.  Any  country  which 
wishes  for  a  Bible  in  its  own  language  must  use  a 
translation  of  the  Vulgate. 


CHAPTER  VI 

AUTHORITY  FOE  USE  OF  THE  DOUAY  BIBLE 

THE  translation  of  the  Vulgate  used  by  English- 
speaking  people  is  known  as  the  "  Douay  Bible." 

Cardinal  Capellan  in  his  remarks  on  the  decrees 
of  the  First  Council  of  Baltimore  points  out  that, 
for  the  reasons  given  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter, 
no  approval  has  been  given  to  this  version  either  by 
an  ecumenical  Council  or  by  a  Congregation  at 
Rome.  The  authority  for  its  use  in  the  United  States 
is  found  in  the  decrees  of  the  Second  Council  of 
Baltimore  (1866),15  a  plenary  Council  for  this  coun- 
try, which  recommends  that  the  clergy  do  not  per- 
mit their  flock  "  to  select  the  pure  food  of  the  Word 
of  God,  unless  from  approved  versions  and  editions/' 
and  continues  as  follows :  "  We  order,  therefore,  that 
the  Douay  Version,  which  is  received  in  all  churches 
where  the  faithful  speak  English,  and  which  has 
been  justly  set  forth  for  the  use  of  the  faithful  by 
our  predecessors,  be  altogether  retained.  Moreover, 
the  bishops  will  take  care  that  the  most  approved 
copy  should  be  designated  by  them,  and  all  editions 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  of  the  Douay 
Version  be  most  perfectly  made,  with  such  notes  as 
might  be  selected  from  the  holy  Fathers  of  the 
church  or  from  learned  Catholics."  In  the  Third 
Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore  (1884)  a  suggestion 

155 


156  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

was  made  that  an  authorized  English  version  of  the 
Scriptures  should  be  published;  but  this  was  not 
agreed  to,  presumably  for  the  reasons  we  have 
given.16 

The  Council  particularly  directed  that  all  biblical 
discussion  among  the  clergy  be  based  on  the  Vulgate 
only,  and  not  on  any  translation. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Catholic  Church  as  to 
the  Vulgate  and  the  Douay  Bible  is  the  same  to-day 
as  it  was  at  the  date  of  the  decrees.  In  proof  of  this 
we  have  permission  to  quote  the  following  letter  from 
the  Kev.  Father  Prendergast,  of  the  College  of  Saint 
Francis  Xavier,  30  West  Sixteenth  Street,  New 
York  City,  dated  March  20,  1904:  "  I  find  no  appro- 
bation of  the  Douay  Version  given  by  the  Church. 
Individual  theologians  and  individual  bishops  have 
approved  this  or  that  version,  and  the  Council  of 
Baltimore  II  quotes  Archbishop  Carroll  as  approving 
the  Douay  Version  in  general,  re  approves  it,  and 
urges  the  bishops  to  see  that  all  editions  to  which  they 
give  their  imprimatur  are  in  accord  with  some  good 
exemplar  of  it.  This  Council  has  authority  only  in 
the  United  States.  Such  approval  is  more  than  the 
Church  has  given  to  any  other  translation  of  the 
Vulgate  into  a  modern  tongue."  With  reference  to 
English  approvals,  the  Rev.  T.  M.  Joaffe,  professor 
of  theology  at  Saint  Benno's,  England,  in  a  letter 
dated  June  19,  1904,  which  we  have  permission  to 
quote,  says,  "  There  is  no  favorite  edition." 

In  brief,  the  position  of  the  Catholic  Church  is 
that  any  of  these  revisions,  approved  by  a  bishop  or 


THIRD   PRIZE  ESSAY  157 

higher  authority,  may  be  used  by  members  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  but  the  only  authorized  version  of 
the  Bible  is  the  Vulgate  itself.  Bearing  these  facts 
in  mind,  the  reader  will  be  better  able  to  appreciate 
the  history  of  the  Douay  Bible  given  in  the  next 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  DOUAY  BIBLE 

DURING  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary  of  England, 
William  Allen,  a  strong  supporter  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  was  Principal  of  Saint  Mary's 
Hall,  Oxford.  His  character  and  intellect  are  de- 
scribed by  Bishop  Andrewes  in  the  following  pithy 
sentence :  "  His  forehead  was  surely  flint  and  his 
tongue  a  razor."  17  After  the  accession  of  Queen 
Elizabeth  he  left  England  and  was  for  many  years 
an  enthusiastic  worker  for  the  restoration  of  England 
to  communion  with  Rome.  Through  his  efforts  the 
Catholic  College  at  Douay,  in  Flanders,  was  founded 
with  the  object  of  organizing  missionary  work  in 
England,  and  his  labors  gained  for  him  the  cardinal's 
hat. 

In  1578,  owing  to  political  troubles,  the  members 
of  the  College  migrated  to  Rheims,  returning  to 
Douay  in  1609. 

Another  Englishman,  Gregory  Martin,  reputed  to 
be  the  best  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholar  of  his  day, 
joined  William  Allen  at  Douay  in  1570,  and  they 
were  there  associated  with  Richard  Bristow,  Dr. 
Reynolds,  and  Dr.  Worthington. 

These  were  the  men  who  made  the  translation  of 
the  Douay  Bible  from  the  Vulgate.  Martin  trans- 
lated and  his  fellow  laborers  revised  his  translation. 

158 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  159 

The  result  of  their  labors  was  the  publication  in 
1582  of  the  New  Testament  with  notes  by  Bristow 
and  Allen  at  Rheims,  and  in  1609  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  notes  by  Worthington  at  Douay,  form- 
ing the  Rheims  and  Douay  Bible,  or,  as  it  is  more 
commonly  called  the  "  Douay  Bible." 

Though  approved  by  the  Universities  of  Rheims 
and  Douay  at  the  time  of  publication,18  the  trans- 
lation has  "  never,"  says  Cardinal  Newman,  "  had 
any  episcopal  imprimatur,  much  less  has  it  received 
any  formal  approbation  from  the  Holy  See.  It 
comes  to  us  on  the  authority  of  certain  divines  of  the 
Cathedral  and  College  of  Rheims  and  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Douay,  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  in- 
direct recognition  of  English,  Scotch  and  Irish  bish- 
ops, and  its  general  reception  by  the  faithful." 

Two  editions  of  the  Douay  Bible  were  published, 
the  first  in  1609,  the  second  in  1633,  which  was  ren- 
dered necessary  by  the  issue  of  Clement  VIII's  re- 
vised version  of  the  Vulgate  (1592-98).  Of  the 
many  revisions  which  have  been  made  of  this  trans- 
lation, the  most  important  is  that  of  Challoner, 
whose  first  edition  of  the  whole  Bible  appeared  in 
London  in  1750.  His  text  was  the  first  of  the  Douay 
versions  published  with  episcopal  sanction,  for  he 
himself  was  a  bishop.  The  alterations  are  very  con- 
siderable, based  on  the  principle  of  making  the  text 
more  easily  understood  by  the  reader.  Old  and  dis- 
used words  and  expressions  are  replaced  by  more 
familiar  language,  but  there  is  not  apparently  any 
wish  to  use  Saxon  in  place  of  Latin  words. 


160  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

His  version  of  the  Old  Testament  must  be  con- 
sidered, as  a  whole,  to  be  a  new  translation.  Every 
Catholic  translation,  Cardinal  Newman  points  out, 
must  resemble  others,  as  all  are  translations  of  the 
same  Vulgate ;  but,  "  this  connection  between  the 
Douay  and  Challoner  being  allowed  for,  Challoner's 
version  is  even  nearer  to  the  Protestant  than  it  is  to 
the  Douay."  "  At  this  day,"  he  continues,  "  the 
Douay  Old  Testament  no  longer  exists  as  a  received 
version  of  the  authorized  Vulgate.  There  is  one  and 
only  one  received  text "  (that  of  Challoner). 

The  New  Testament  has  been  frequently  revised, 
and  the  revisions  differ  widely  from  the  original ;  but 
there  is  not  any  one  standard  edition  of  the  same 
authority  as  Challoner's  Old  Testament.  In  1783 
in  Dublin  Rev.  Bernard  McMahon  published  a  re- 
vision, approved  by  Archbishop  Carpenter,  which, 
though  it  claims  descent  from  Challoner,  has  never- 
theless about  fifty  variations  from  his  text  in  the 
Gospels,  and  about  five  hundred  in  the  other  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  The  editions  of  this  revision, 
subsequently  published,  are  known  as  Troy's  Bible, 
as  that  prelate  directed  their  preparation  and  gave 
his  formal  approval  of  the  translation.19  They  strive 
to  make  the  language  more  colloquial,  and  in  many 
places  are  certainly  successful. 

Subsequent  editors  of  the  New  Testament  have 
had  to  choose  between  Challoner's  and  Troy's  texts, 
and  have  made  free  use  of  the  choice  thus  given 
them.  One  of  these  editions,  that  of  Haydock, 
was  issued  by  the  Very  Rev.  F,  C.  Husenbeth  with 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  161 

abridged  annotations  in  1853,  under  the  sanction  of 
the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Wareing  and  "  the  concurrent 
approbation  and  sanction  of  all  the  Right  Rev. 
Vicars-Apostolic  of  Great  Britain."  The  approba- 
tion of  most  of  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the 
church  in  America  was  also  given  to  it.  The  other 
editions  of  the  New  Testament  of  -most  importance 
are  those  of  Murray  (1815),  "  which  follows  Chal- 
loner's  early  edition,  and  that  of  Cardinal  Wise- 
man (1847)."  The  edition  from  which  we  make 
quotations,  and  which  is  in  common  use  in  the 
United  States,  was  published  in  1899  with  the  ap- 
probation of  Cardinal  Gibbons  as  "  an  accurate  re- 
print of  the  Rhemish  Douay  edition."  This  state- 
ment is  not  strictly  correct,  as  the  edition  differs 
widely  from  the  original  version  and  resembles  the 
Revised  Version  more  than  many  of  its  predecessors. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  MEN  WHO  TRANSLATED  THE  BIBLE  INTO 
ENGLISH 

ALTHOUGH  the  Bible,  as  a  whole,  was  not  trans- 
lated into  Anglo-Saxon,20  parts  of  it  exist  in  that 
tongue — the  earliest  effort  being  a  paraphrase  of 
portions  of  the  Bible  done  in  verse  by  Ca3dmon,  a 
monk  of  Whitby  (d.  680). 

From  that  time  down  to  the  fourteenth  century 
paraphrases,  versions,  and  translations  were  made  by 
various  men  at  various  times,  but  all  with  the  one 
deep  purpose  of  giving  the  people  the  Word  of  God  in 
their  own  language.  In  1382  John  Wyclif  issued  the 
first  published  translation  of  the  Bible,  which  may 
be  considered  "  the  original  stock  of  the  Authorized 
Version,  whose  peculiar  strength  is  directly  derived 
from  his."  21 

To  translate  the  Bible  in  those  days  was  as  much 
as  a  man's  life  was  worth,  and  the  work  was  pub- 
lished anonymously.  It  was  not  approved  by  the  au- 
thorities, and  the  Vulgate  was  the  standard  Bible. 
But  though  the  terrors  of  excommunication  were  held 
over  the  heads  of  any  who  dared  to  read  Wyclif 's 
books,  22  Eoxe  bears  witness  that  "  the  fervent  zeal 
of  those  churches  seemed  superior  to  our  days  and 
times,  as  manifestly  may  appear  by  their  sitting  up 

162 


THIRD   PRIZE  ESSAY  163 

all  night  in  reading  and  hearing;  also  by  their  ex- 
penses and  charges  in  buying  books  in  English,  of 
whom  some  gave  five  marks  [about  $200]  .  .  .  and 
some  gave  a  load  of  hay  for  a  few  chapters  of  James 
or  Paul  in  English."  23  This  translation  was  indeed 
precious  as  the  only  English  version  before  Tyndale's, 
nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  later. 

These  intervening  years  witnessed  the  invention 
of  printing  and  a  revival  of  learning  in  Europe, 
which  made  possible  the  wider  study  of  the  Bible  in 
the  original.  The  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  for  the  first  time  published  in  a  complete  form 
in  1488,  followed  by  the  rabbinical  Bibles  of  Bom- 
berg  in  1518  and  1525,  well  furnished  with  com- 
mentaries of  early  Jewish  scholars.24  The  Greek 
language  before  this  time  wTas  practically  unknown 
in  western  Europe.  But  the  scholars  of  Greece,  ex- 
iled from  their  country  on  the  fall  of  the  Eastern 
Empire  in  1455,  stimulated  its  study.  Printed 
Greek  Testaments  were  published,  of  which  the  first 
was  that  of  Erasmus  (1516).  The  appliances  for 
the  study  of  Greek  soon  became  fairly  adequate, 
grammars  obtained  a  wide  circulation,  and  several 
lexicons  were  published.25  These  Hebrew  and  Greek 
editions  were  eagerly  bought  up,  and  an  impulse 
given  to  the  study  of  the  Word  of  God,  which  so 
alarmed  the  ignorant  and  illiterate  monks  that  they 
declared  there  were  no  such  languages  as  Hebrew 
and  Greek.  The  art  of  printing  was  denounced  in  a 
sermon  from  Saint  Paul's  Cross :  "  We  must  root 
out  printing,  or  printing  will  root  out  us."  26 


164  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

It  was  about  this  time  (1522)  that  Luther,  the  hero 
of  the  Reformation,  published  his  version,  which  had 
a  marked  influence  on  subsequent  translations.  In- 
deed, notwithstanding  the  anathemas  of  the  monks, 
"  so  mightily  grew  the  Word  of  God  and  prevailed  " 
that  by  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  Scrip- 
tures were  circulated  throughout  almost  all  Europe 
in  the  language  of  each  nation.27 

The  translation  into  English  to  which,  with  Wy- 
clif's,  the  Revised  Version  is  most  indebted  is  that  of 
William  Tyndale,  born  about  1484.  His  work  met 
with  considerable  opposition,  and  he  was  diligently 
hunted  down  by  emissaries  of  Henry  VIII,  then 
King  of  England,  Cardinal  Wolsey,  and  Cuthbert, 
Bishop  of  Durham.  He  was  often  obliged  to  use 
a  feigned  name  and  to  move  about  from  place  to 
place.  This  persecution  made  it  impossible  for  him 
to  work  in  England,  and  he  left  that  country  in  May, 
1524,  never  to  return.  As  he  plaintively  says  in  his 
preface  to  the  book  of  Genesis  published  in  1531, 
he  "  understood  at  the  last  that  there  was  no  room 
in  my  lord  of  London's  palace  to  translate  the  New 
Testament,  but  also  that  there  was  no  place  to  do  it 
in  all  England."  Abroad  he  was  able  to  work  with 
effect,  and  in  1525  printed  a  quarto  edition  of  the 
New  Testament  at  Worms,  whither  he  fled  from 
Cologne  to  avoid  an  injunction  on  his  printer  ob- 
tained at  the  instigation  of  Cardinal  Wolsey.  The 
issue  of  this  edition  soon  became  known  in  England, 
and  Tyndale's  enemies  kept  a  sharp  lookout  for  its 
arrival,  with  the  charitable  object  of  seizing  and 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  165 

burning  it.  To  baffle  their  design,  Tyndale  issued  an 
octavo  edition  of  three  thousand  copies,  which  was 
widely  circulated  in  his  native  country.  Tyndale's 
name  did  not  appear  on  either  edition,  for  as  he  says 
in  his  prologue,  "  I  followed  the  counsel  of  Christ, 
which  exhorteth  men  to  do  their  deeds  secretly  and  to 
be  content  with  the  conscience  of  welldoing." 

The  stringent  measures  taken  to  suppress  these 
editions,  though  in  a  great  measure  successful,  de- 
feated their  own  purpose.  They  naturally  increased 
the  price  of  the  book,  and  many  copies  were  bought 
for  large  sums  of  money  and  used  for  reprints  and 
new  editions.  The  books  were  indeed  as  eagerly 
bought  up  as  they  were  sought  out  for  destruction. 
The  importers  were  prosecuted  and  made  to  do  pen- 
ance "  by  riding  with  their  faces  to  the  horses'  tails, 
with  the  books  fastened  thick  about  them  or  tacked  to 
their  gowns  or  cloaks,  to  the  Standard  in  Chepe,  and 
then  with  their  own  hands  to  fling  them  into  the  fire 
made  on  purpose  to  burn  them." 

Tyndale  ultimately  crowned  his  life's  labors  with 
the  martyr's  death.  On  October  6,  1536,  after  a 
long  imprisonment  at  Vilvorde,  he  was  strangled  at 
the  stake  and  his  body  burned  to  ashes.28  His 
dying  cry  was,  "  Lord,  open  the  King  of  England's 
eyes !  "  29  He  was  as  noble  a  man  as  his  translation 
was  a  noble  work. 

In  contrast  to  the  heroic  nature  and  strength  of 
Tyndale  stand  the  patient  labors  and  tender  sym- 
pathy of  Myles  Coverdale,  the  beauty  of  whose  char- 
acter is  fully  shown  in  his  disclaimer  of  originality 


166  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

in  translations*  of  the  Bible  which  both  friends  and 
foes  have  ascribed  to  him. 

The  persecutions  endured  by  Tyndale  did  not 
deter  Coverdale  from  entering  on  the  same  work,  and 
his  first  translation  was  published  in  1535,  before 
Tyndale's  martyrdom.  The  edition  was  dedicated  to 
Henry  VIII,  Coverdale's  object  being  to  secure  free 
circulation  of  the  Scriptures.  It  had,  however,  no 
distinct  royal  sanction,  though  it  is  said  to  have  been 
carried  out  with  the  knowledge  of  Thomas  Crom- 
well, the  Chancellor,  and  Sir  Thomas  More,  the  latter 
of  whom  was  one  of  Tynd ale's  most  active  opponents. 
In  the  prologue  to  this  edition,  some  copies  refer  to 
the  King's  "  dearest  wife "  as  Anne,  others  have 
altered  it  to  J.  Ane,  and  in  some  copies  the  Queen's 
name  is  suppressed  altogether. 

Like  other  translators,  Coverdale  had  to  suffer  for 
his  zeal.  He  was  twice  exiled,  and  on  the  accession 
of  Mary,  in  1556,  was  deprived  of  the  bishopric  of 
Exeter.  He  subsequently  returned  to  England,  and 
died  in  1569,  at  the  ripe  age  of  eighty-one.30 

The  next  translator,  John  Rogers,  whose  alias, 
Thomas  Matthew,  appears  upon  the  title-page  of  his 
Bible,  published  his  first  edition  in  1537,  two  years 
after  Coverdale's  first  Bible.  This  may  be  called  the 
first  Authorized  Version,  as  we  find  permission  given 
by  Henry  VIII,  "  that  the  book  shall  be  allowed 
by  his  authority  to  be  bought  and  read  within  this 
realm."  31  The  royal  license  was  obtained  for  Cov- 
erdale's Bible  in  the  same  year,  making  it  the  second 
Authorized  Version. 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  167 

Richard  Taverner  published  an  edition  in  1539, 
which,  though  allowed  to  be  read  in  churches,  quickly 
fell  into  neglect,  and  "  appears  to  have  exercised  no 
influence  whatever  on  later  revisions."  32 

The  Great  Bible,  so  called  from  the  size  of  the 
volume,  was  published  in  1539.  It  is  sometimes, 
though  erroneously,  called  Cranmer's  Bible;  but  the 
credit  of  it  is  really  due  to  Cromwell,  by  whose  di- 
rections Coverdale  and  Grafton  were  authorized  to 
print  and  publish  it.  The  prologue  was  written  by 
Cranmer,  and  is  a  proof  of  his  wisdom  and  earnest- 
ness. The  actual  work  wras  carried  on  in  Paris,  and 
the  inquisitor-general,  hearing  of  it,  stopped  its  prog- 
ress in  December,  1538,  and  ordered  the  printed 
sheets  to  be  seized.  Coverdale  and  his  associates  fled, 
leaving  the  presses,  the  type,  and  some  printed  copies 
behind  them.  These  were  condemned  to  be  burned, 
but  the  officers  of  the  Inquisition,  apparently  for  a 
pecuniary  consideration,  which  even  in  those  days 
could  accomplish  some  of  the  feats  it  performs  in  our 
own  time,  sold  the  outfit  to  a  haberdasher,  who  bought 
them  as  waste  paper.  In  this  manner  "  four  great 
dry  vats  full "  were  saved,  and  removed  to  England, 
where  the  Great  Bible  was  published.  The  fourth 
edition  of  1541  was  by  command  of  the  King  author- 
ized by  Cuthbert,  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  Nicholas, 
Bishop  of  Rochester.  This  was  necessary ;  since  the 
Great  Bible  being  principally  due  to  Cromwell,  his 
disgrace  and  the  suspicion  of  heresy  under  which  he 
had  fallen  called  for  an  episcopal  sanction  to  render 
it  orthodox. 


168  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

This  Cutlibert  was  the  same  man  who  had  refused 
the  hospitality  of  his  palace  to  Tyndale  and  burned 
his  books,  and  who  now,  by  the  irony  of  fate,  author- 
ized what  was  practically  the  same  work  under  a 
changed  name.33 

The  zeal  for  the  general  reading  of  the  Bible  was 
not  permitted  to  have  much  scope.  In  1543  the  read- 
ing of  Scripture  was  placed  under  very  severe 
restrictions  and  an  Act  of  Parliament  sardonically 
entitled  "  for  the  advancement  of  true  religion  "  for- 
bade the  use  of  Tyndale's  translation.  Three  years 
later  similar  restrictions  were  placed  on  Wyclif  s, 
Coverdale's,  and  other  Bibles,  which  were  ordered  to 
be  burned.  The  rigid  enforcement  of  these  laws  ac- 
counts for  the  few  copies  preserved  of  early  Bibles  and 
Testaments,  and  the  mutilated  form  of  others,  saved 
only  by  removing  the  title-pages.  It  was  only  the 
Great  Bible  the  reading  of  which  was  not  forbidden. 

In  the  midst  of  the  reaction  against  the  Bible 
Henry  VIII  died  (1547),  and  the  history  of  the 
English  version  remained  stationary  for  some  years. 
On  the  accession  of  Edward  VI  the  restrictions 
placed  on  printing  and  reading  the  Scriptures  were 
removed,  and  an  impulse  was  given  to  the  study  of 
the  Word  of  God,  which  resulted  in  the  publication 
of  several  Bibles  and  New  Testaments.  On  the  ac- 
cession of  Queen  Mary  (1553)  public  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  was  again  prohibited,  no  English  Bibles 
were  printed  during  her  reign,  and  the  works  of 
Tyndale,  Coverdale,  and  others  were  denounced  as 
heretical. 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  169 

But  religious  intolerance  did  not  stop  with  these 
measures.  Both  Catholics  and  Protestants  alike  be- 
lieved it  to  be  their  duty  to  convert  or  exterminate 
their  opponents,  and  the  choice  offered  to  an  opponent 
when  seized  was  to  recant  or  to  be  burned  at  the  stake. 

Many  distinguished  divines  betook  themselves  to 
Geneva.  There,  mainly  through  the  influence  of  the 
great  Protestant  leader,  Calvin,  they  met  with  hos- 
pitable treatment  and  were  allowed  to  study  and  to 
worship  God  according  to  their  own  convictions.34 
The  result  was  the  publication  at  Geneva  by  William 
Whittingham  of  the  New  Testament,  in  1557,  and 
the  whole  Bible  in  1560.  This  version  was  known 
as  the  "  Genevan  Bible."  35  One  hundred  and  thirty 
editions  were  published,  and  it  retained  its  popu- 
larity for  one  hundred  years.36 

The  superiority  and  wide  circulation  of  the  Ge- 
nevan Bible  made  the  defects  of  the  Great  Bible  gen- 
erally known,  and  rendered  it  difficult  to  restore  that 
version  to  its  former  position.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  one-sided  theological  tendency  of  the  Genevan 
Version  made  its  adoption  as  an  authorized  version 
impossible. 

In  these  circumstances  the  Bishops'  Bible  was 
planned — so  called  because  the  work  of  translation 
was  divided  among  the  bishops  of  the  English 
Church,  under  the  leadership  of  Matthew  Parker, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  The  first  edition  was 
published  in  1568,  and  a  corrected  version  in  1572 
was  the  immediate  basis  of  the  Authorized  Version 
of  1611.37 


170  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

This  was  the  work  of  forty-seven  translators  chosen 
by  King  James  I  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Uni- 
versities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  They  worked 
in  three  companies,  and  at  the  close  of  their  labors 
the  whole  work  was  revised  by  members  from  each 
company.  Though  known  as  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion it  was  never  formally  sanctioned  by  any  author- 
ity, ecclesiastical  or  temporal.  As  Westcott  in  his 
History  of  the  English  Bible  (p.  310)  says,  "A  re- 
vision which  embodied  the  ripe  fruits  of  nearly  a 
century  of  labor  and  appealed  to  the  religious  in- 
stinct of  a  great  Christian  people  gained  by  its  own 
internal  character  a  vital  authority  which  could  never 
have  been  secured  by  any  edict  of  sovereign  rulers." 

Subsequent  editions  contained  many  errors,  which 
have  been  catalogued  and  arranged  by  Scrivener 
in  his  Authorized  Edition  of  the  English  Bible 
(Cambridge,  1881).  The  one  usually  regarded  as 
the  standard  edition  was  published  by  Blayney  in 
1749.  The  American  Bible  Society  in  1851-52 
published  an  edition  which  claims  to  contain  the 
version  in  the  form  used  for  three  centuries  without 
addition  or  omission,  and  to  which  all  the  subsequent 
editions  published  by  the  society  conform.38 

Several  attempts  were  made  during  the  eighteenth 
century  by  individual  writers  to  improve  the  Author- 
ized Version,  but  were,  on  the  whole,  dismal  failures. 

In  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  a  greater 
impulse  to  revision  was  given  by  the  publication  of 
critical  texts  of  the  New  Testament  by  well  known 
scholars,  by  a  substantial  advance  in  Hebrew  and 


THIRD   PRIZE  ESSAY  171 

Greek  scholarship,  and,  especially,  by  the  discovery 
of  one  of  the  oldest  known  manuscripts  of  the  entire 
Scriptures,  and  the  careful  examination  and  collating 
of  many  hundred  manuscripts.39  As  a  result  two 
Committees  were  formed  in  England  in  February, 
1870,  under  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Convoca- 
tion, with  a  view  to  the  revision  of  the  Old  and  Xew 
Testaments.  American  scholars  were  invited  to  join 
in  the  work,  and  two  Committees,  organized  in  con- 
cert with  and  on  the  same  lines  as  the  English  Re- 
visers,  began  work  on  October  4,  1872. 

The  English  Revisers  undertook  to  send  all  their 
revisions  to  the  American  Committee,  and  to  take  all 
their  suggestions  into  consideration  before  they  con- 
cluded their  labors — to  furnish  them  before  publica- 
tion with  copies  of  the  Revision  in  its  final  shape, 
and  to  allow  the  American  Revisers  to  present  in  an 
Appendix  all  differences  of  reading  and  renderings 
of  importance  which  the  English  Revisers  did  not  see 
their  way  to  adopt.  The  American  Revisers,  on  their 
part,  promised  to  give  their  moral  support  to  the 
Revised  Version  published  in  England,  and  not  to 
issue  a  rival  edition  for  fourteen  years.  The  English 
Revision  Company  published  the  New  Testament  on 
May  17,  1881,  and  the  Old  Testament  on  July  10, 
1884.  In  their  preface  they  "  gratefully  acknowl- 
edge "  the  American  Committee's  "  care,  vigilance, 
and  accuracy,"  and  add  "  we  hiimbly  pray  that  their 
labors  and  our  own,  thus  happily  united,  may  be 
permitted  to  bear  a  blessing  to  both  countries,  and  to 
all  English-speaking  peoples  throughout  the  world." 


172  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Soon  after  the  close  of  their  work  the  English  Re- 
vision  Company  disbanded,  but  the  American  Com- 
mittee continued  their  organization  and  made  prep- 
arations for  the  publication  of  the  American  Revised 
Version. 

The  Appendix  to  the  English  Revision  had  been 
somewhat  hastily  prepared,  and  itself  required  re- 
vision. In  it  an  effort  had  been  made  to  reduce  the 
number  of  different  readings  to  the  lowest  possible 
point;  but  in  preparing  an  American  Revision  the 
Revisers  "  felt  themselves  free  to  go  beyond  the  task 
of  incorporating  the  Appendix  in  the  text,"  and  in- 
cluded in  their  Revised  Version  any  emendations 
which  a  two-thirds  majority  decided  to  be  of  im- 
portance, whether  they  had  been  in  the  Appendix 
or  not.  The  time  limit  of  fourteen  years  having 
elapsed,  the  Revisers  in  1901  published  the  Revised 
Version,  American  Standard  Edition. 


CHAPTER  IX1 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  PREVIOUS  ENGLISH  TRANSLA- 
TIONS ON  THE  REVISED  VERSION 

WYCLIF'S  translation  is  "  robust,  terse,  popular, 
and  homely,  and  undoubtedly  had  an  indirect  effect 
on  the  general  style  of  Scripture  translations  and  on 
the  formation  of  the  English  language."  40  Many 
expressions  in  the  Revised  Version  owe  their  origin 
to  it,  as,  for  example,  "  Narrow  is  the  gate  and 
straitened  the  way,"  "  to  be  born  anew/'  "  the  deep 
things  of  God,"  "  a  living  sacrifice,"  "  the  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless."  41  The  Beatitudes  in  Luke 
VI:  20-23  are  almost  word  for  word  the  same  as 
Wyclifs.* 

These  expressions  are  found  also  in  Tyndale's 
Bible,  the  connecting  link  between  the  two  being  the 
Vulgate.  Wyclif  translated  direct  from  that  version, 
but  Tyndale  and  all  subsequent  translators  were  able 
to  use  and  did  use  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek 
texts. 

While  "  Wycliffe  must  be  considered  as  having 
originated  the  diction  and  phraseology  which  for  five 
centuries  has  constituted  the  consecrated  dialect  of 
the  English  speech,"  Tyndale  gave  "  to  it  that  finish 
and  perfection  which  has  so  admirably  adapted  it  to 

*  The  Douay  Version  adopts  all  these  expressions  except  "  the 
cup  of  blessing,"  which  is  called  "  the  chalice  of  benediction." 

173 


174  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  expression  of  religious  doctrine  and  sentiment, 
and  to  the  narration  of  the  remarkable  series  of  his- 
torical facts  which  are  recorded  in  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  He  fixed  the  type  according  to  which 
later  laborers  worked.  His  influence  decided  that 
our  Bible  should  be  popular  and  not  literary,  speak- 
ing in  a  simple  dialect,  and  that  so  by  its  simplicity 
it  should  be  endowed  with  permanence.  He  felt  by 
a  happy  instinct  the  potential  affinity  between  He- 
brew and  English  idioms,  and  enriched  our  language 
and  thought  forever  with  the  characteristics  of  the 
Semitic  mind." 

To  quote  Froude,  his  translation  "  is  substan- 
tially the  Bible  with  which  we  are  all  familiar.  The 
peculiar  genius — if  such  a  word  may  be  permitted — 
which  breathes  through  it,  the  mingled  tenderness 
and  majesty,  the  Saxon  simplicity,  the  preternatural 
grandeur  unequaled,  un approached  in  the  attempted 
improvements  of  modern  scholars,  all  are  here,  and 
bear  the  impress  of  the  mind  of  one  great  man — 
William  Tyndale."  42 

Tyndale's  was  an  honest  translation  from  the  orig- 
inal, and  to  its  excellence  witness  is  given  by  Geddes, 
a  Eoman  Catholic  scholar.  Though  his  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  has  been  denied  by  some  authorities,  the  evi- 
dence seems  conclusive  in  favor  of  his  having  been  an 
accurate  Hebrew  scholar.  It  is  not,  as  has  been  as- 
serted by  Hallam  arid  by  Macknight,  a  copy  from  the 
Vulgate,  nor  from  Luther's  German.  He  "  availed 
himself  of  the  best  help  which  lay  within  his  reach, 
but  he  used  it  as  a  master  and  not  as  a  disciple.  In 


THIRD   PRIZE  ESSAY  175 

this  work  alone  he  felt  that  substantial  independence 
was  essential  to  success.  In  exposition  or  exhortation 
he  might  borrow  freely  the  language  or  the  thought 
which  seemed  suited  to  his  purpose,  but  in  rendering 
the  sacred  text  he  remained  throughout  faithful  to 
the  instincts  of  a  scholar."  43 

Tyndale's  translation  of  the  New  Testament  is  a 
complete  proof  of  his  independence.  It  shows  clearly 
that  he  rendered  the  Greek  text,  while  he  consulted 
the  Latin  of  the  Vulgate,  and  the  German  of  Lu- 
ther.44 Instances  in  which  he  followed  the  Vulgate 
are  found  in  the  expressions  "  pinnacle  of  the 
temple,"  "  this  night  is  thy  soul  required  of  thee," 
"  in  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions,"  "  let  us 
run  the  race  that  is  set  before  us,"  "  written  on  their 
foreheads." 

The  American  Revisers  have  in  these  and  other 
passages  where  Tyndale  followed  the  Vulgate  in- 
dorsed his  renderings,  and  adopted  them  almost  word 
for  word — a  striking  proof  of  the  accuracy  of  his 
scholarship. 

In  these  passages  the  Douay  is  naturally  similar  to 
Tyndale  and  the  Revised  Version ;  but  this  is  not  the 
case  where  Tyndale  has  shown  his  independence  in 
departing  from  the  Vulgate.  His  scholarship  in 
these  cases  is  in  almost  every  instance  confirmed  by 
the  American  Revisers.45 

One  striking  instance  is  the  expression  in  the 
Lord's  Prayer  "  our  daily  bread,"  which  the  Douay 
Version  renders  "  our  supersubstantial  bread,"  a 
slavish  literalism  from  the  Latin. 


176  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Among  expressions  for  which  he  is  indebted  to 
Luther  we  quote  the  following,  found  also  in  the 
Douay  and  Revised  Versions :  "  A  voice  was  heard 
in  Rama/7  "  to  the  Greek  and  to  the  barbarians/' 
"  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart/'  "  the  foolish- 
ness of  God/7  "  that  they  may  have  the  right  to  the 
tree  of  life." 

One  other  expression  of  Luther's,  "  the  natural 
man,"  adopted  by  Tyndale  and  the  American  Revis- 
ers, is  rendered  in  the  Douay  Version  "  the  sensual 
man,"  which  can  hardly  be  claimed  as  an  improve- 
ment. But  the  similarity  of  the  other  expressions  to 
Luther's  German  would  indicate  that  the  translators 
of  the  Douay  Version  were  not  unwilling  to  consult 
other  authorities  besides  the  Vulgate.46 

The  remarkable  similarity  between  Tyndale  and 
the  Revised  Version  is  well  shown  in  two  passages 
taken  at  random,  one  from  Numbers  XVI:  28-35, 
and  the  other  from  Luke  XV.  A  comparison  of 
these  passages  shows  that  they  are  almost  identical. 

Another  proof  of  this  similarity  is  found  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  nine  tenths  of 
which  owes  its  origin  to  Tyndale,47  and  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  where  five  sixths  of  the 
text  is  Tyndale's.  In  nine  instances  in  these  passages 
the  Revised  Version  has  either  adopted  Tyndale's 
rendering  in  preference  to  that  of  the  Authorized 
Version  or  approaches  more  nearly  to  him. 

These  passages  may  be  taken  as  fair  examples  of 
the  effect  of  Tyndale's  translation  on  the  Bible  of 
to-day. 


THIRD   PRIZE  ESSAY  177 

It  is  not  generally  considered  that  Coverdale's 
Bible  can  be  given  a  place  among  independent  trans- 
lations; but  it  is  due  to  him  that  certain  old  words, 
not  used  by  Tyndale,  such  as  "  charity,'7  "  confess," 
"  church/7  "  grace/7  "  priest/7  are  not  lost  in  the 
Bible.48 

Coverdale7s  influence  is  chiefly  felt  through 
Rogers7  s  edition,  in  which  a  large  portion  is  incorpo- 
rated, and  still  more  through  the  Great  Bible,  "  in 
which  he  revised  more  than  once  his  own  work.77  49 
Some  part  of  his  Bible  survives  in  the  poetical  books 
and  the  Prophets.  But  where  his  work  still  lives  and 
is  in  daily  use  is  in  the  version  of  the  Psalms  in  the 
Prayer-books  of  the  American  and  English  Episcopal 
Churches,  which,  though  taken  from  the  Great  Bible, 
is  in  essence  the  Psalter  of  Coverdale. 

The  version  of  Rogers  had  no  original  and  inde- 
pendent influence  on  the  present  text.  It  combined 
the  work  of  earlier  translators  with  "  the  judicious 
hand  of  an  accomplished  scholar/7  50  and  laid  the 
basis  of  later  revisions.  The  labors  of  the  next 
seventy-five  years,  which  witnessed  the  issue  of  the 
Great  Bible,  the  Bishops7  Bible,  and  the  Authorized 
Version,  were  devoted  to  efforts  to  improve  the  text 
left  by  Rogers. 

The  Great  Bible  is,  however,  considered  to  be  in- 
ferior to  Rogers7s  in  many  respects,  and  both  the 
Genevan  and  the  Bishops7  Bible  corrected  its  text 
and  strove  to  remove  errors  which  impaired  the 
sense.51  The  work  of  the  bishops  was  especially 
designed  to  make  a  popular  and  not  a  literary  ver- 


178  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

sion.  Owing  to  the  number  of  translators,  the  dif- 
ferent books  have  varying  merit,  but  in  general  it 
may  be  said  that  the  Greek  scholarship  is  inferior  to 
the  Hebrew.  Such  new  renderings  as  are  given  can 
generally  be  traced  to  some  other  translation,  and  are 
not  original;  but  throughout  the  translation  may  be 
seen  the  influence  of  the  Genevan  Version.  This 
first  gave  the  present  division  into  verses,  based  upon 
Robert  Stephanus's  Greek  Testament  of  1551. 


CHAPTEK  X 

THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION  OF  1611  AND  THE  ENG- 
LISH AND  AMERICAN  REVISIONS  THEREOF 

THE  Authorized  Version  and  the  English  and 
American  Revised  Versions  are  the  work  of  a  church, 
and  not  of  a  man. 

The  rules  which  guided  the  Revisers  in  both  cases 
have  a  remarkable  similarity.  In  each  case  they 
were  directed  to  follow  the  English  translation  then 
in  common  use,  and  to  make  as  few  alterations  as 
faithfulness  to  originals  wrould  permit.  Where  alter- 
ations were  decided  on,  the  expression  of  them  was  to 
be  in  the  language  of  earlier  English  versions.  In 
the  English  and  American  Revisions  no  alteration 
was  permitted  unless  supported  by  two  thirds  of  the 
Revisers.  Precautions  were  taken  to  secure  the  full- 
est consideration  of  every  change.  The  opinions  of 
"  divines,  scholars,  and  literary  men  "  were  invited, 
and  every  effort  made  to  "  bring  a  plain  reader  more 
closely  into  contact  with  the  exact  thought  of  the 
sacred  writers."  52  The  later  Revisers  had  at  their 
disposal  sources  of  information  which  were  not  avail- 
able to  the  translators  of  the  Authorized  Version.  In 
particular,  we  may  mention  the  Codex  Sinaiticus, 
a  few  leaves  of  which  were  discovered  in  1844,  the 
whole  Codex  coming  to  light  in  1859 ;  the  examina- 
tion of  many  hundred  Hebrew  manuscripts  by  Ken- 

179 


180  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

nicott,  De  Rossi,  Davidson,  and  others,  and  a  large 
literature  on  the  text  of  the  Bible,  gathering  to- 
gether in  available  form  and  order  all  the  material 
from  which  light  on  the  true  text  could  be  obtained.* 
In  fact,  textual  criticism  as  a  science  was  not  in 
existence  in  1611. 

The  revision  of  the  Old  Testament  was  a  some- 
what easier  task  than  that  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  "  Massoretic  Text,"  accepted  as  the  basis  of  their 
work,  has  come  down  in  manuscripts  which  differ 
little  from  one  another.  Though  there  are  admitted 
defects  in  it,  the  only  means  of  correcting  it  is  from 
the  versions,  especially  the  Septuagint.  But  the  copies 
of  these  versions  vary  considerably  from  one  another, 
and  before  a  revision  of  the  "  Massoretic  Text "  can 
be  made  a  vast  amount  of  preliminary  work  must 
be  done  in  collecting  and  comparing  copies  of 
the  Septuagint  and  other  versions  and  in  careful 
study  of  the  Hebrew  manuscripts  themselves.  For 
these  reasons  the  Revisers  did  not  consider  that  the 
existing  knowledge  on  the  subject  justified  a  recon- 
struction of  the  text.53  Where  there  are  evident 
mistakes  in  the  Hebrew  and  renderings  in  versions 
which  seemed  plausible,  the  correction  is  usually 
noted  in  the  margin.  In  a  few  of  these  cases  a 
change  in  the  text  is  made.  But  the  majority  of 
changes  arise  from  the  more  accurate  Hebrew  scholar- 
ship of  to-day  and  correct  obvious  mistakes  in  the 
Authorized  Version. 

One  change  of  this  kind  made  is  the  substitution 
*  The  Bibliography  gives  particulars  as  to  all  these  works.^ 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  181 

of  the  word  "  Jehovah  "  for  "  Lord  "  and  "  God." 
A  Jewish  superstition  regards  the  divine  name 
"  Jehovah  "  as  too  sacred  to  be  uttered,  and  in  the 
Authorized  Version  the  word  is  seldom  or  never  used. 
The  Revisers  in  their  Preface  point  out  that  the 
word  "  designates  God  as  the  personal  God,  as  the 
covenant  God,  the  God  of  revelation,  the  Deliverer, 
the  Friend  of  the  people,  the  ever-living  Helper  of 
those  who  are  in  trouble,"  and  "  with  its  wealth  of 
sacred  associations  is  now  restored  to  the  place  in 
the  sacred  text  to  which  it  has  an  unquestionable 
claim."  Another  similar  change  affecting  a  great 
number  of  passages  is  the  substitution  of  the  Hebrew 
word  "  Sheol  "  for  the  different  renderings  "  grave," 
"  pit,"  "  hell,"  for  the  same  word.  "  Sheol  "  sig- 
nifies the  "  abode  of  departed  spirits,"  and  as  the 
words  used  in  the  Authorized  \7ersions  have  wider 
and  different  meanings  the  alteration  seems  desirable. 
Other  alterations  include  the  use  of  "  its  "  for  "  his  " 
and  "  her  "  when  not  referring  to  persons.54 

The  work  on  the  New  Testament  involved  a  criti- 
cism of  the  text,  which  "  forms  a  special  study  of 
much  intricacy  and  difficulty,"  and  "  the  rival  claims 
of  various  readings  "  had  to  be  settled.55  The  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  any  change  was  carefully  sifted, 
and  the  different  schools  of  criticism  among  the  Re- 
visers enabled  the  best  results  to  be  obtained.  Where 
the  authorities  differ  a  note  is  made  in  the  margin 
to  the  effect  that  "  some  ancient  authorities  "  have  a 
different  rendering,  which  is  also  given  in  the  note. 
The  state  of  the  case  is  in  this  way  fairly  represented. 


182  BIBLE  VERSION^  COMPARED 

In  some  passages  it  was  necessary  to  revise  the  Greek 
text  in  accordance  with  documentary  evidence.  For 
example,  the  weight  of  evidence  is  against  the  in- 
sertion of  the  clause,  "  For  thine  is  the  kingdom, 
and  the  power,  and  the  glory,  forever.  Amen " 
(Matthew  VI:  13),56  and  it  is  accordingly  omitted. 
The  evidence  is  in  favor  of  reading  the  passage  "  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh"  (I  Timothy  III:  16)57 
as  "  He  who  was  manifest  in  the  flesh/7  some  ancient 
authorities  reading  "  which  wras."  The  passage  is 
altered  accordingly.* 

One  decided  improvement  in  both  Old  and  New 
Testaments  is  the  arrangement  of  the  text.  The  old 
method  of  division  into  chapter  and  verse,  while  re- 
tained for  convenience  of  reference,  is  subordinated 
to  divisions  into  paragraphs.  A  minute  subdivision, 
which  is  a  serious  obstacle  to  the  right  understanding 
of  Scripture,  is  thus  avoided.  Each  paragraph  with- 
out reference  to  chapter  or  verse  deals  with  one 
subject.  In  poetical  portions  the  text  is  arranged  in 
lines  so  as  to  exhibit  the  parallelism  characteristic  of 
Hebrew  poetry. 

*The  Douay  Version  omits  the   clause  from  Matthew  and 
makes  the  clause  from  Timothy  read  "which  was." 


CHAPTER 


THE  DOUAY  VERSION  AND  THE  REVISED  VERSION 
COMPARED 

Two  documents,  the  Preface  to  the  Douay  Bible 
and  the  Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible  published  in 
1822  by  Ward,  give  criticisms  by  Catholics  on 
Protestant  versions.  They  may  be  regarded  as  the 
best  defense  of  the  Douay  Version,  and  the  most 
severe  condemnation  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and 
of  its  successor,  the  Revised  Version. 

The  Preface  to  the  New  Testament  of  the  Douay 
Bible  states  that  the  translators  are  "  very  precise 
and  religious  in  following  .  .  .  the  old  vulgar  ap- 
proved Latin  not  only  in  sense  .  .  .  but  sometimes 
in  the  very  words  and  phrases  which  may  seem  .  .  . 
to  common  English  ears  not  yet  acquainted  there- 
with rudeness  or  ignorance;  but  to  the  discreet 
reader  that  deeply  weigheth  and  considereth  the  im- 
portance of  sacred  words  and  speeches  and  how  easily 
the  voluntary  translator  may  miss  the  true  sense  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  we  doubt  not  but  our  consideration 
and  doing  therein  shall  seem  reasonable  and  neces- 
sary: yea,  and  that  all  sorts  of  Catholic  readers  will 
in  short  time  think  that  familiar  which  at  first  may 
seem  strange."  The  Preface  then  gives  specific  in- 
stances of  "  words  and  phrases  "  so  retained.  Many 
of  them,  however,  are  not  retained  in  the  modern 

183 


184  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Douay,  but  have  been  altered  to  agree  with  the  Au- 
thorized and  Revised  Versions.  We  need  only  con- 
cern ourselves  with  those  which  the  modern  Douay 
retains,  and  we  find  that  the  Revised  Version  agrees 
with  the  modern  Douay  in  the  use  of  "  hosanna," 
"  raca/7  "  phylacteries/7  "  concision/7  "  circumci- 
sion/7 "priest,"  "deacon/7  "tradition/7  "altar.77 
The  only  other  "  words  and  phrases  77  retained  in  the 
modern  Douay  are  those  given  below  side  by  side 
with  the  words  preferred  by  the  American  Revisers : 

DOUAY  VERSION  REVISED   VERSION 

Alleluia  Hallelujah 

sons  of  Belial  base  fellows 

flourished  again  revived 

exhaust  the  sins  of  many        bear  the  sins  of  many 

doth  penance  that  repenteth 

penance  repentance 

chalice  cup 

No  argument  in  support  of  any  doctrine  can  be 
founded  on  the  alterations  made  by  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion, which,  however,  are  certainly  more  easily  un- 
derstood by  the  average  reader. 

At  the  end  of  the  Douay  New  Testament  is  a  table 
of  words  which  the  translators  "  thought  it  far  better 
to  keep  in  the  text  and  to  tell  their  signification  in  a 
table  for  that  purpose  than  to  disgrace  both  the  text 
and  themselves  with  translating  them.77  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  this  reasoning;  for,  if  the  words  in 
question  can  be  translated  into  English  by  apt  words 
(and  the  American  Revisers  have  shown  that  this  can 
be  done),  why  should  the  Bible  reader  be  compelled 
to  turn  to  a  table  at  the  end  to  ascertain  the  meaning 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  185 

of  the  fifty-five  words  there  given  ?  Revisers  of  the 
Douay  Bible  have  evidently  felt  the  force  of  this  argu- 
ment, and  in  their  revisions  twenty-nine  words  and 
phrases  of  these  fifty-five  agree  exactly  with  the  Re- 
vised Version,  eight  are  expressed  in  words  familiar 
to  the  ordinary  reader,  while  eighteen,  retained  in 
the  modern  Douay  from  the  original,  are  rendered  in 
the  Revised  Version  by  ordinary  English  words, 
which  in  every  case  agree  with  the  meaning  of  those 
words  as  given  in  the  table.*  When  we  add  that 
among  the  words  retained  we  find  "  azymes,"  "  holo- 
causts," "  parascue,"  "  pasche,"  we  are  forced  to  ad- 
mit that  the  American  Revisers  have  adopted  the 
wiser  course. 

Ward's  book  gives  one  hundred  and  seventeen 
quotations  from  all  parts  of  the  Bible,  in  which  he 
considers  the  rendering  of  the  Authorized  Version 
to  be  erroneous.  An  analysis  of  the  quotations 
gives  some  very  curious  results,  and  throws  light  on 
changes  made  by  the  American  Revisers. 

Thirty-five  passages  are  admitted  by  Ward  to 
have  been  corrected  in  the  edition  of  the  Authorized 
Version  of  1683.  Nine  are  so  altered  in  the  Revised 
Version  as  to  remove  the  objections  raised.59  Eight 
are  altered  in  the  modern  Douay  to  agree  with  the 
Revised  Version  on  the  points  objected  to.60  Nine 
agree  in  both  versions.61 

The  objections  raised  to  the  Revised  Version  and 
its  predecessors  are  almost  entirely  removed  by  altera- 

*  A  statement  of  all  these  words  and  phrases  will  be  found  in 
the  Appendix,  Note  58. 


186  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

tions  in  one  version  or  the  other,  and  where  readings 
objected  to  are  retained  the  arguments  used  against 
them  are  founded  on  illogical  premises.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  show  more  clearly  than  do  these  facts  the 
danger  of  making  comments  of  too  severe  a  nature 
on  the  work  of  translators,  who,  even  by  their  op- 
ponents, might  be  credited  with  an  honest  intention. 
This  is  also  shown  in  criticisms  on  the  Douay  Ver- 
sion by  modern  waiters,  which  have  not  always  been 
quite  fair.  They  take  advantage  of  the  curious 
diction  of  the  original  Douay  Version  and  always 
quote  from  it,  and  not  from  modern  editions.  These 
have  made  extensive  alterations,  and  it  would,  we  sub- 
mit, display  a  more  judicial  and  charitable  spirit  if 
these  criticisms  were  founded  on  versions  of  the 
Douay  Bible  now  in  use,  and  not  on  that  used  three 
hundred  years  ago.  If  we  wish  to  criticise  the  Re- 
vised Version  we  do  not  do  so  by  referring  to  Tyn- 
dale's  Bible;  neither,  when  we  criticise  the  Douay 
Bible  as  used  by  Catholics  of  to-day,  should  we  refer 
for  that  purpose  to  an  out-of-date  edition.  Thus  out 
of  seventy-one  passages  quoted  from  the  Douay  Bible 
by  Protestant  writers  and  condemned  as  "  unintel- 
ligible/7 "  painful/'  "  absurd/'  we  find  that  eighteen 
passages  in  the  modern  Douay  agree  exactly  with  the 
Eevised  Version,  while  thirty-five  have  been  altered 
in  the  modern  Douay  to  make  them  intelligible  and 
agreeable  in  sense  with  the  Revised  Version.62  The 
truth  is  that  the  Authorized  Version  and  its  daughter, 
the  Revised  Version,  are  largely  indebted  to  the 
Douay  Version  for  many  words  and  expressions,  and 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY  187 

the  modern  Douay  has  adopted  from  the  Authorized 
Version  a  very  great  number  of  renderings.  Out  of 
twelve  hundred  and  thirty-three  passages  which  we 
have  collated,63  eight  hundred  and  forty-seven  have 
been  altered  in  the  modern  editions  to  agree  exactly, 
or  substantially,  either  with  the  Authorized  or  Re- 
vised Version.61  This  may  be  taken  as  a  fair  test  of 
the  alterations  in  general.* 

On  the  other  hand,  the  influence  of  the  Douay  on 
the  Revised  Version  is  seen  in  the  large  proportion 
of  words  of  Latin  derivation  which  owe  their  origin 
(through  the  medium  of  the  Authorized  Version)  to 
the  Douay,  and  it  is  from  this  source  rather  than 
from  Coverdale  that  the  most  powerful  action  of  the 
Vulgate  on  the  Revised  Version  is  exercised.  In 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  there  are  phrases  and 
sentences  in  every  chapter,  and  two  or  three  in  most 
chapters,  and  ten  words,  such  as  "  impenitent/' 
"  propitiation/7  "  contribution/7  which  derive  their 
origin  in  this  way  and  are  identical  in  both  the 
Douay  and  Revised  Versions.64  In  a  passage  of 
moderate  difficulty,  Hebrews  XIII,  verses  8  to  13  are 
almost  identical  in  both  versions,  and  an  examination 
of  the  First  Epistle  of  John  shows  a  large  number 
of  phrases  in  the  Revised  Version  identical  with  the 
Douay  Version.65  Other  expressions  identical  in 
the  two  versions  and  originating  with  the  Douay  of 
1582  are :  John  IX :  22,  "  he  should  be  put  out  of  the 
synagogue;"  Acts  I:  26,  "he  was  numbered  with 

*  Other  cases  of  agreement  affecting  numerous  passages  have 
been  pointed  out  in  the  Essay. 


188  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  eleven  apostles;"  Eomans  I:  21,  "their  .  .  . 
heart  was  darkened ;  "  XI :  2,  "  his  people  which  he 
foreknew;  "  Titus  IV:  5,  "  regeneration."  At  the 
same  time  there  are  a  sufficient  number  of  passages  in 
the  modern  Douay  to  support  the  contention  that 
the  translation  in  use  to-day  itself  requires  transla- 
tion in  some  passages. 

For  the  purpose  of  our  comparison  we  must,  of 
course,  take  the  version  as  we  find  it,  and  we  can 
best  call  attention  to  its  diction  by  the  following  quo- 
tations in  addition  to  those  we  have  already  noticed : 


MODERN   DOUAY  REVISED   VERSION 

Jeremiah  11  19  Let  us  put  wood  on  Let  us  destroy  the  tree 

his  bread  with  the  fruit  thereof 

Matthew  1  17  the  transmigration  of  the  carrying  away  to 

Babylon  Babylon 

Mark  3  6            made  a  consultation  took  counsel 

John  52  a  pond,  called  Probat-  by  the  sheep  gate  a 

ica  pool 

Ephesians  3  15  of  whom  all  paternity  from  whom  every  fam- 

in  heaven  and  earth  ily  in  heaven  and 

is  named  earth  is  named 

Colossians  3  16  spiritual  canticles  spiritual  songs 

I  Peter  5  5  insinuate  humility  one  gird  yourselves  with 

to  another  humility 

Hebrews  11  21  adored  the  top  of  his  and  worshiped,  leaning 

rod  on  the  top  of  his  staff 


In  some  passages,  however,  the  Douay  Version  is 
in  advance  of  the  Revised  Version  in  the  use  of  mod- 
ern language.  In  the  passages  quoted  below,  sug- 
gestions were  made  by  scholars  for  the  substitution 
of  modern  for  out-of-date  expressions,  but  were  not 
accepted  by  the  American  Revisers.  It  will  be 


THIRD   PRIZE   ESSAY 


189 


observed   that   the    rendering   in   the   Douay    Bible 
meets  the  objections: 


Exodus  38  19 
Judges  12  6 
Ruth  2  3 

I  Samuel  9  26 

Isaiah  1  13 
Isaiah  18  6 


Micah  1  7 
Luke  14  32 


REVISED   VERSION 

overlaying    of     their 

capitals 

he  could  not  frame  to 

pronounce  it  right 
her  hap  was  to  light 

on    the    portion    of 

the    field    belonging 

unto  Boaz 
about    the    spring    of 

the  day 

I  cannot  away  with 
the    ravenous    birds 

shall    summer   upon 

them 

all  her  hires 
ambassage 


DOUAY  VERSION 

their  heads 

not  being  able  to  ex- 
press 

it  happened  that  the 
owner  of  the  field 
was  Boaz 

it  began  now  to  be  light 

I  will  not  abide 
the  fowls  shall  be  upon 
them  all  the  summer 

all  her  wages 
embassy 


CHAPTER  XII 
CONCLUSION 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  consider  the  different 
points  raised  in  Father  Early' s  letter. 

We  have  shown  that  the  Catholic  Church  does  not 
prohibit  the  reading  in  private  or  in  the  family  circle 
of  the  Word  of  God.  The  only  version,  however, 
which,  by  the  decrees  of  that  church,  is  authentic 
is  the  Vulgate — a  Latin  translation — and  this  will 
certainly  not  be  found  "  in  every  family,"  and  would 
not  be  of  much  practical  use  if  it  was.  What  will  be 
found  is  one  of  the  numerous  editions  of  the  Douay 
Bible,  whose  use  is,  as  we  have  shown,  permitted  in 
this  country,  but  which  has  never  been  declared  au- 
thentic. Father  Early' s  description  indicates  that,  in 
his  opinion,  any  of  these  editions  represents  the  text 
more  faithfully  than  "  the  Protestant  version,  which 
goes  back  only  to  the  time  of  Henry  VIII  of  England 
and  was  then  gotten  up  for  obvious  reasons." 

Can  this  statement  be  supported  ?  Let  us  look  at 
the  facts.  The  Douay  Version  and  its  revisions  are, 
or  profess  to  be,  translations  direct  from  the  Vulgate 
— itself  only  a  version,  though  of  great  antiquity 
and  value.  ~No  effort  is  made  in  the  Douay  Version 
to  translate  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek,  or  to 
compare  them  with  the  Vulgate  or  other  versions  of 
equal  or  greater  value.  In  the  Old  Testament  the 

190 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  191 

"  Received  Text,"  beyond  reasonable  doubt,  as  faith- 
fully preserves  the  original  as  the  Vulgate  can  do. 
In  the  New  Testament,  Greek  manuscripts  discovered 
in  comparatively  recent  years,  and  almost  as  old  as 
the  Vulgate,  are  disregarded.  Thus,  in  the  case  of 
both  Testaments,  no  attention  is  paid  to  documents 
which  may  indeed  be  said  to  have  come  down  to  us 
unchanged  "  from  the  time  of  Christ  Himself." 

The  original  Douay  Version  was  the  result  of  the 
labors  of  four  men,  and  each  revision  represents  only 
the  individual  scholarship  and  thought  of  one,  or  at 
the  most  two  revisers.  We  have  shown  that  its 
modern  editions  have  borrowed  largely  from  the 
Authorized  Version,  and  most  of  their  alterations 
are  taken  from  it. 

The  original  basis  of  the  Revised  Version  was 
Tyndale's  translation — a  man  diligently  persecuted 
by  Henry  VIII  and  his  emissaries.  The  Authorized 
Version,  founded  on  Tyndale's  and  other  transla- 
tions, was  the  work  of  a  church  represented  by  its 
most  learned  divines  and  scholars  in  an  age  when  the 
intolerance  of  former  years  had  somewhat  abated, 
and  the  versions  which  most  largely  contributed  to 
changes  made  in  Tyndale's  text  were  the  Douay 
Bible  itself  and  the  Genevan  Version.  These  repre- 
sented two  extreme  types  of  thought,  and  the  use 
made  of  them  by  the  Revisers  of  1611  shows  that 
they  were  anxious  to  obtain  the  best  translation,  inde- 
pendently of  the  tenets  of  the  school  of  thought  which 
proved  those  translations  to  be  correct.  The  Revised 
Version  is  the  result  of  continued  study  and  criticism 


192  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

of  the  best  minds,  for  several  hundred  years,  of  the 
original  Hebrew  and  Greek  text,  the  versions,  quota- 
tions from  the  Fathers,  and  modern  translations, 
completed  by  a  body  of  men  who  thought  that  ad- 
vantage should  be  taken  of  all  that  critical  study  has 
brought  to  light,  and  who  felt  "  that  such  a  work 
can  never  be  accomplished  by  organized  efforts  of 
scholarship  and  criticism  unless  assisted  by  Divine 
help."  66  The  Revisers  have  been  able  to  consult 
manuscripts  and  authorities  not  at  the  disposal  of 
the  compiler  of  the  Vulgate  or  of  its  translators. 
Their  work  has  been  carried  out  with  an  earnest 
desire  to  give  the  Word  of  God  in  English  as  nearly 
as  possible  as  it  is  in  the  original,  and  has  no 
connection  whatever  with  Henry  VIII,  his  errors  or 
his  opinions.  There  is,  in  fact,  not  one  instance  in 
the  history  of  the  English  Bible  where  the  influence 
of  that  monarch,  except  as  a  persecutor,  had  any 
effect  on  the  work  of  the  translators. 

To  sum  up  our  conclusions,  the  principal  points  of 
difference  between  the  two  versions  are: 

1.  The  Douay  Version  includes  and  the  Revised 
Version  excludes  the  Apocrypha. 

2.  The  Douay  Version  in  numerous   cases   uses 
words    and   expressions  which   require  explanation, 
while  the  Revised  Version  strives  to  put  in  idiomatic 
English  the  thought  of  the  original.      The  original 
object  of  the  Douay  Version  of  1852  was  to  stop  lib- 
erties taken  with  the  text  by  reformers.     This  object 
has  not  been  kept  in  view  by  its  modern  editors,  who 
have  introduced  extensive  alterations,  and  have  made 


THIRD  PRIZE  ESSAY  193 

the  text  much  more  like  that  of  the  Revised  Version 
than  the  original  edition.  This  has  been  done  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  remove  most  of  the  criticisms 
which  Catholics  have  passed  on  Protestant  Bibles. 

3.  The  most  important  difference  of  all  is  in  the 
commentaries  on  the  text  printed  with  all  editions  of 
the  Douay  Bible  in  accordance  with  the  sentence  in 
Father  Early's  letter,  "Neither  will  the  Catholic 
Church  allow  private  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures." 67  We  need  not  enter  into  the  question 
whether  this  view  is  held  by  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  alone,  or  discuss  the  points  of  doctrine  raised 
in  the  commentaries  on  the  text.  At  the  end  of  the 
Douay  Bible  there  is  a  "  Table  of  References,"  to 
texts  in  support  of  various  doctrines  held  by  the 
Catholic  Church.  A  careful  collation  of  all  the  texts 
there  quoted  in  support  of  the  most  important  articles 
of  faith  of  that  church  shows  that,  though  in  many 
cases  the  renderings  in  the  Douay  and  Revised  Ver- 
sions differ,  the  differences  are  verbal  only,  and  in 
no  way  affect  the  validity  of  those  texts  as  supporting 
or  opposing  the  doctrine  with  reference  to  which  they 
are  quoted.  The  notes,  of  course,  construe  them  in 
support  of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  and  herein  lies  the 
main  difference  between  the  two  versions. 

We  have  now  traced  the  origin  and  history  of  the 
two  versions,  and  by  comparison  between  them,  im- 
partially and  faithfully  represented,  enabled  the 
reader  to  judge  which  "  most  clearly  and  most 
freshly  "  shows  forth  the  Word  of  God  to  those  who 
speak  the  English  language.  "  All  endeavors  to 


194  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

translate  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  another  tongue 
must  fall  short  of  their  aim,  when  the  obligation  is 
imposed  of  producing  a  version,  that  shall  be  alike, 
literal  and  idiomatic,  faithful  to  each  thought  of 
the  original  and  yet  in  the  expression  of  it  har- 
monious and  free.77  Our  readers  can  judge  for  them- 
selves which  version  most  nearly  approaches  this 
ideal,  and  in  forming  an  opinion  we  would  ask  them 
to  recognize  the  fact  that  revised  translations  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  must  be  necessary  as  more  light  is 
thrown  on  the  languages  in  which  the  Bible  was 
written,  and  the  texts  of  it  which  have  been  preserved, 
and  that  a  modern  phraseology  is  necessary  for 
preserving  and  bringing  home  to  modern  men  and 
women  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  We 
would  ask  from  all  an  impartial  judgment,  a  recog- 
nition of  the  merits  of  each  version,  and  respect  for 
the  convictions  of  those  who  honestly  differ  from 
them  and  who  value  one  of  the  versions  as  highly 
as  they  do  their  own. 


APPENDIX 


APPENDIX 


FIRST   ESSAY 

Preue  ye  all  thingis.— I  Th  5  21,  Wyclif. 

The  notes  originally  submitted  contained  more  information, 
illustration,  and  criticism.  In  a  few  cases  the  essayist  still  pre- 
sents the  results  of  independent  study  in  compressed  form,  as  at 
notes  69-77,  92,  100,  138,  153,  158.  In  a  few  others  the  matters 
at  stake  are  so  important  that  the  reader  may  desire  to  see  the 
evidence  and  judge  for  himself,  as  at  notes  202,  204,  205,  221, 
225.  Otherwise,  however,  the  notes  now  printed  have  been 
confined  to  justifying  the  statements  in  the  text  by  mere  ref- 
erence to  writers  of  acknowledged  eminence.  Among  these  may 
be  mentioned  Comely,  Introductions  Compendium,  Paris,  1891, 
and  Gigot,  General  Introduction,  New  York,  1901,  as  the  chief 
Catholics  cited.  The  full  titles  of  works  referred  to  will  be  found 
in  the  Bibliography;  the  extra  (fifth)  volume  of  Hastings'  Dic- 
tionary is  cited  as  V.  A  very  few  references  have  been  made 
to  books  published  since  the  essays  were  sent  in. 

1.  The  Aramaic  portions  are:.  Ezr  4  8-6  18,  7  12-26;  Jer  10  11; 
Dan  2  4-7  28.     Once  there  were  also  extant  in  Aramaic :  Judith, 
Tobit,  and  a  first  edition  of  Matthew.      See  Comely  Introd. 
Compend.  58.     Also  Diagram  1,  based  on  Hastings'  Dictionary. 

2.  Some  of  the  most  important  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  are : 
The  Prophets,  written  by  Aaron  ben  Moses  ben  Asher  of  Tiberias 
in  895  A.D.,  now  at  Cairo.     The  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
edited  by  the  same  scholar,  the  standard  Western  Jewish  Text,  at 
Aleppo.     The  Later  Prophets,  at  St.  Petersburg.     The  Later 
Prophets,  written  by  Moses  ben  David  ben  Naphtali  of  Babylon, 
partly  of  the  standard  Eastern  Jewish  Text,  at  Tzufutkale.     See 
Strack  in  Hastings   IV.   725-732,   and  Buhl  Canon  and  Text 

197 


198  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

85-90.  Other  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  Pentateuch  have  been 
in  the  custody  of  the  Samaritans  from  soon  after  the  time  of  Ezra; 
but  those  which  have  been  seen  by  Europeans  are  no  older  than 
the  Jewish,  and  are  considered  as  giving  a  corrupted  text.  See 
Konig  in  Hastings  V.  68-72;  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  63. 
Only  one  important  manuscript  was  anciently  in  Christian  cus- 
tody, the  copy  by  Origen  in  his  great  Hexapla.  This  is  no  longer 
extant;  but  a  few  extracts  from  it  have  been  preserved  in  quota- 
tion, and  in  1896  a  copy  of  part  of  the  Psalms  was  discovered  at 
Milan.  See  Nestle  in  Hastings  IV.  442-443. 

3.  Of  the  original  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  more  than  2,300 
copies  have  been  examined,  though  few  are  complete.     There  are 
traces  of  revisions,  especially  after  the  time  of  Constantine,  when 
a  demand  arose  for  handsome  volumes  to  be  used  in  fashionable 
churches  and  families.     The  copies  made  after  a  few  centuries 
are  not  much  esteemed  for  purity  of  text.     Of  early  copies  note: 
Before  400  an  entire  New  Testament  at  St.  Petersburg;  one  at 
Rome,  lacking  part  of  Hebrews,  Timothy,  Titus,  Philemon,  and 
the  Revelation.    Before  500  two  mutilated  Testaments  at  London 
and  Paris.     These  four  are  parts  of  very  valuable  Greek  Bibles, 
the  Old  Testaments  being  the  Septuagint  Translation,  with  vary- 
ing contents.     For  full  lists  see  Scrivener-Miller  Introduction  to 
the  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  I.,  and  Comely  Introd.  Com- 
pend. 76-77. 

4.  More  than  8,000  copies  of  Latin  versions  are  extant,  but  not 
all  have  been  examined  carefully,  and  not  quite  250  are  yet  known 
that  have  been  copied  with  care.     See  Comely  Introd.  Compend. 
90-121 ;  Kennedy  and  White  in  Hastings  III.  49-53,  IV.  886-889; 
Scrivener-Miller  Introduction,  Vol.  II.,  Chs.  ii.-iv. 

5.  See  Comely  Introd.   Compend.   40,  637-640;    Westcott  A 
General  Survey  of  the  History  of  the  Canon  242  and  Appen- 
dix C. 

6.  It  might  have  been  expected  that  the  customs  and  usages 
of  Palestine  should  be  the  most  important,  as  this  land  was  the 
cradle  of  Christianity.     But  the  Jewish  revolts  in  66  A.D.  and  in 
131  A.D.  broke  all  continuity,  and  the  remnants  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians lost  all  importance.     The  earliest  information  as  to  the 


APPENDIX  199 

Scriptures  in  Syria  comes  from  the  Christians  of  Edessa,  and  the 
history  of  the  versions  near  here  is  not  so  far  unraveled  that  all 
scholars  are  quite  agreed.  The  probable  course  of  events  is  as  fol- 
lows :  The  earliest  Christians  here  were  Jews,  and  they  translated 
into  Syriac  the  books  usually  read  in  Palestine,  those  in  the 
Protestant  Old  Testament.  To  these  they  added  Ecclesiasticus. 
About  180  A.D.  a  native  called  Tatian  returned  from  Rome,  bring- 
ing with  him  the  four  Gospels  as  read  there,  which  he  pieced  to- 
gether into  one  continuous  story,  and  translated  into  Syriac ;  this 
book  was  called  the  "Diatessaron."  The  only  other  Christian 
books  used  there  were  the  Acts,  and  the  Epistles  of  Paul  with  the 
Hebrews.  Twenty  years  later  under  the  influence  of  Antioch  the 
Revelation  was  added,  and  the  four  separate  Gospels  were  trans- 
lated, but  were  not  taken  into  church  use.  Soon  after  411  A.D. 
the  Diatessaron  was  confiscated  from  the  churches,  and  a  revision 
of  the  Bible  was  introduced,  adding  a  few  more  books  to  the  New 
Testament,  but  dropping  the  Revelation.  This  revised  Bible, 
introduced  by  Rabbula,  Bishop  of  Edessa,  became  standard  for  all 
Syrians,  and  is  known  as  the  "Peshito."  Speaking  of  this,  Gigot 
says,  Introduction  289-294:  "As  Jews,  they  would  naturally 
select  the  Hebrew  text  as  the  basis  of  their  work"  in  the  Old 
Testament.  In  the  New,  "the  other  canonical  books,  viz.,  II 
Peter,  II  and  III  John,  St.  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse,  had  not 
been  translated."  See,  however,  Nestle  in  Hastings  IV.  648a, 
650a,  740b,  and  Burkitt  Early  Eastern  Christianity. 

7.  Comely  says,  Introd.  Compend.  41:  "As  the  second  century 
went  out  and  the  third  century  came  in,  almost  the  same  canon 
used  at  Rome  was  found  in  the  rest  of  the  Western  churches.  For 
the  African  Church  lacked  only  the  epistles  to  the  HEBREWS,  of 
JAMES,  and  the  second  of  PETER,  as  is  gathered  from  the 
evidence  of  Tertullian  and  St.  Cyprian;  but  Tertullian  also  testi- 
fies that  at  that  time  the  epistle  to  the  HEBREWS  was  received 
by  not  a  few  churches.  The  Gallican  Church,  whose  solitary 
witness  is  St.  Irenaeus,  seems  to  have  lacked  four  books,  HE- 
BREWS, JAMES,  II  PETER,  JUDE,  and  in  its  canon  was 
present  also  a  book  not  inspired,  namely  the  SHEPHERD  of 
Hernias."  See  also  Westcott  Canon  423. 


200  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

8.  Thirty-eight  of  the  Old  Latin  manuscripts  are  described  in 
Scrivener-Miller  Introduction  II.  45-54.     Kennedy  gives  an  ex- 
haustive list  in  Hastings  III.  49-52. 

9.  Specimens  are  given  by  Swete  An  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  in  Greek  89-91 ;  by  Westcott  in  Smith  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  article  "Vulgate."     See  also  Kennedy  in  Hastings  III.  48b ; 
Gigot  Introduction  307-312. 

10.  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  106;   Gigot    Introduction  318, 
316;  Fritzsche  in  Schaff-Herzog  Cyclopedia  I.  283. 

11.  Comely  Introd.   Compend.   106;   White  in  Hastings  IV. 
873b. 

12.  Gigot  Introduction  316;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  874,  where 
383  is  given  as  date  for  Gospels,  without  reference. 

13.  Gigot  Introduction  318;  Buhl  Canon  and  Text  161. 

14.  Gigot  Introduction  318;  Buhl  Canon  and  Text  162. 

15.  Berger  Histoire  de  la  Vulgate',   Gigot    Introduction  328- 
329;  Burkitt  Old  Latin  and  Itala  91.     See  also  note  4.     The  Old 
Latin  versions  were  used  longest  by  the  Western  Christians  who 
would  not  bow  to  the  authority  of  Rome — e.g.,  the  Donatists; 
the  Irish  in  Ireland,  Britain,  and  the  continent;  the  Albigenses, 
etc. 

16.  Augustine  used  the  New  Testament  and  commended  it, 
though  he  opposed  the  fresh  translation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
See  Burkitt  Old  Latin  and  Itala  55-65.     With  him  agree  Berger, 
Corssen,  and  Zahn. 

17.  The  "Prologus  Galeatus"  is  reprinted  in  the  1592  Standard 
Vulgate. 

18.  Gigot  Introduction  104. 

19.  "Time  and  again,  this  illustrious  Doctor  of  the  Latin 
Church  rejects  the  authority  of  the  deutero-canonical  books  in 
the  most  explicit  manner."     Gigot  Introduction  56. 

20.  "A  large  number  of  scholars  think  that  the  Palestinian 
Canon  never  contained  other  books  than  those  now  found  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible     .     .     .  (This)  the  first  solution  is  better  grounded 
on  fact."     Gigot  Introduction  32,  34.     See  Ryle  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  208,  209. 

21.  Jerome  yielded  to  importunity  so  far  as  to  skim  over 


APPENDIX  201 

Tobit,  Judith,  and  the  additions  to  Esther  and  Daniel.     Gigot 
Introduction  56-59;  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  107. 

22.  Origen  Letter  to  Africanus.     See  Bleek  in  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1853,  p.  267ff.     Gigot  quotes  with  approval  the  article 
on  "Apocrypha ''  in  Hastings  I. 

23.  Gigot  Introduction  118ff;  Swete  Introduction  281. 

24.  For  the  Council  of  Carthage  see  Mansi  Conciliorum  nova 
et  amplissima  Collectio  III.  891. 

25.  For  the  Letter  to  Exsuperius  of  Toulouse  see  Mansi  Col- 
lectio III.  1,040,  or  Migne  Latin  Fathers  XX.  501-502. 

26.  "Up  to  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  ...  we  find  a  dis- 
tressing jumble  of  the  best  and  the  worst  texts  existing  side  by 
side,  the  ancient  versions  mixed  with  the  Vulgate  in  inextricable 
confusion,  and  the  books  of  the  Bible  following  a  different  order 
in  each  manuscript."     Berger  Histoire  xvii.     See  also  Gigot 
Introduction  105,  330;  Swete  Introduction  103;  White  in  Has- 
tings IV.  877;  and  Diagram  1. 

27.  Gregory's  preface  to  Job:  Migne  LXXV.  516. 

28.  Gigot  Introduction  318,  329;  Swete  Introduction  98-99. 

29.  Lingard  Antiquities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  516. 

30.  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  110;   Kenyon  Our   Bible   and 
the  Ancient  Manuscripts  171-172. 

31.  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  108;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  878a. 

32.  "  The  texts  of  the  old  versions  and  the  new  are  constantly 
mixed  and  confused  in  the  manuscripts."     Berger  Histoire  xi. 
See  also  Gigot  Introduction  67,  330-331;    Kenyon  Our  Bible 
182-185;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  878-879. 

33.  Gigot  Introduction  331 ;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  879a. 

34.  Comely    Introd.    Compend.    110;    Reuss   History    of    the 
Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  252-254. 

35.  Gigot  Introduction  331 ;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  879b. 

36.  Gigot  Introduction  331 ;  Kenyon  Our  Bible  186. 

37.  Encyclopedia  Brittanica  XIX.  503b. 

38.  Gigot  Introduction  71;   Reuss  Canon  268.     The  impor- 
tance of  this  is  hardly  recognized  by  Protestants.     The  Bull  deals 
not  only  with  inspiration,  but  declares  that  the  Roman  Church 
"receives  and  venerates  the  books." 


202  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

39.  White  in  Hastings  IV.  879b. 

40.  Gigot   Introduction  209,  249.     Coppinger  gives  abundant 
details  and  illustrations  in  his  Incunabula  Biblica,  and  The  Bible 
and  its  Transmission. 

41.  Gigot  Introduction  75,  118. 

42.  Buhl  Canon  and  Text  65-67.     Reuss  and  Gigot  know  of 
some  copies  still  arranged  in  Luther's  order. 

43.  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  112;  Fritzsche  in  Schaff-Herzog 
I.  284;  Home   Introduction  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  edition  of 
1839,  II.     Part  ii,  62-64. 

44.  Careless  Protestants  often  misunderstand  the  true  bear- 
ing of  these  decrees,  perhaps  only  reading  part  of  them.     They 
should  study  the  careful  expositions  in  Cornely  Introd.  Compend. 
111-115;  Gigot  Introduction  77-82,  333-336. 

45.  "Eadem   sacrosancta    Synodus    considerans   non   parum 
utilitatis  accedere  posse  Ecclesise  Dei,   si  ex  omnibus  latinis 
editionibus,  quae  circumferuntur,  sacrorum  librorum,  qusenam  pro 
authentica  habenda  sit,  innotescat,  statuit  et  declarat,  ut  h&c 
ipsa  vetus  et  Vulgata  editio,  quae  longo  tot  sseculorum  usu  in  ipsa 
Ecclesia  probata  est,  in  publicis  lectionibus,  disputationibus, 
praBdicationibus  et  expositionibus,  pro  authentica  habeatur  et 
ut  nemo  illam  reiicere  quovis  pretextu  audeat  vel  presumat.  . 
Sed  et  impressoribus  modum  in  hac  parte,  ut  par  est,  imponere 
volens  .  .  .  decernit  et  statuit,  ut  posthac  S.  Scriptura,  potissimum 
vero  hsec  ipsa  vetus  et  Vulgata  editio  quam  emendatissime  im- 
primatur." 

46.  Vatican  Decrees,  ii.     On  the  difference  of  faith  and  dis- 
cipline see  Westcott's  article  on  the  "  Vulgate  "  in  Smith  Dic- 
tionary. 

47.  Brent's  1676  translation  of  Pietro  goave  Polano  History 
of  the  Council  of   Trent    146-147;   Cornely    Introd.    Compend. 
111-112;  Van  Ess  Geschichte der  Vulgata  §  27. 

48.  This  matter  was  hotly  debated  in  two  separate  congrega- 
tions, and  the  legate  had  to  meet  the  minority  privately  and 
represent  that  in  the  public  session  it  would  be  fitting  to  allow  it 
to  pass  without  question.     He  quieted  some  scruples  by  pointing 
out  that  it  was  only  forbidden  to  say  it  contained  such  errors  of 


APPENDIX  203 

faith  as  should  cause  its  rejection.  Brent's  transl.  of  Polano 
Council  of  Trent  151-152;  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  Ill  may 
also  be  consulted. 

49.  The  term  "Vulgate"  had  been  applied  by  Jerome  himself 
and  many  others  to  the  text  of  the  Greek  Bible  as  generally  read 
in  the  third  century,  as  distinguished  from  a  critical  text  proposed 
by  a  scholar  such  as  Origen,  or  new  translations,  as  by  Aquila  and 
Symmachus:    Swete  Introduction  68.      The  analogy,  therefore, 
was  perfect;  the  Fathers  at  Trent  preferred  the  average  current 
text  of  the  Latin,  as  distinguished  from  a  critical  text  prepared 
by  a  scholar  such  as  Ximenes,  or  new  translations,  as  by  Erasmus 
and  Pagninus.     The  transfer  of  the  name  "Vulgate"  from  a 
Greek  to  a  Latin  text,  had  long  been  going  on,  and  since  1545  is 
stereotyped. 

50.  Gigot   Introduction  336;  Brent's  transl.  of  Polano  Coun- 
cil of  Trent  150. 

51.  Comely     Introd.     Compend.     115;     Gigot     Introduction 
336. 

52.  Swete  quotes  the  introductory  matter,  Introduction  174- 
182.     It  explains  the  principles  on  which  Sixtus  was  working,  and 
the  appreciation  at  Rome  that  this  work  was  necessary  as  a  pre- 
liminary to  the  standard  text  of  the  Vulgate. 

53.  Kennedy  in  Hastings  III.  53b. 

54.  The  revisers  were  good  scholars,  but  they  and  Sixtus  went 
on  different  principles.     They  attached  greater  weight  to  the 
originals  when  the  Latin  manuscripts  did  not  agree;   Sixtus  gave 
the  determining  voice  to  early  quotations,  as  he  had  done  with  the 
Old  Latin  Version.     (It  is  worth  noticing  that  his  principle  has 
been  adopted  by  Westcott  and  Hort  as  their  sheet-anchor  for  a 
critical  text  of  the  New  Testament. )     Sixtus  left  nothing  undone 
to  authorize  his  text,  except  that  he  died  before  it  was  officially 
published.     Comely  Introd.  Compend.  116-117;  Gigot  Introduc- 
tion 337.     The  genealogy  of  the  text  the  revisers  worked  on  is: 
Stephanus  1540,  Henten  1547,   Louvain  1573,   Lucas  of  Bruges 
1583.     See  Diagram  3. 

55.  An  original  impression  has  been  carefully  examined  by  the 
writer,  and  the  summary  of  the  Bull  is  a  fairly  close  translation 


204  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

of  some  phrases  in  the  Latin.     The  Bull  has  often  been  reprinted, 
last  by  Comely  in  his  large  Introductio  Generalis. 

56.  Comely  Introd.   Compend.   117;  White  in  Hastings   IV. 
881  a. 

57.  Gigot  Introduction  338;  Fritzsche  in  Schaff-Herzog  I.  284a. 

58.  Comely  Introd.   Compend.   117;  White  in  Hastings  IV. 
881b;  instances  in  Home  Introduction  II.  237-238. 

59.  The  writer  has  examined  original  impressions  of  1592, 
1593,  and  1598,  and  deliberately  disregards  several  statements 
which  appear  inaccurate.     In  particular,  the  note  by  Buhl  Canon 
and  Text  165  errs  both  by  inadequate  information  and  by  the 
impression  conveyed  that  the  tables  of  corrections  in  1598  are 
full  and  final;  they  only  occupy  sixty  lines  for  the  three  editions. 

60.  Jerome  had  repeatedly  refused  to  revise  or  translate  these 
books,  and  in  this  respect  his  judgment  was  indorsed  at  Trent. 
The  valuable  Codex  Amiatinus,  copied  in  England  about  700, 
omitted  them,  and  this  was  used  by  Allen  for  the  1592  edition.     It 
is  a  strong  testimony  to  the  force  of  custom  that  in  spite  of  the 
decisions  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  it  was  felt  necessary  to  concil- 
iate public  opinion  by  appending  them  to  the  authorized  Bible. 
In  modern  editions  their  presence  is  defended  by  the  plea  that 
they  were  cited  by  some  holy  Fathers,  and  are  found  in  manu- 
scripts and  printed  Bibles.     See  Thackeray  in  Hastings  I.  759a. 

61.  Buhl  Canon  and  Text  165. 

62.  James's  book  Bellum  Papale  published  in  1600  has  often 
been  reprinted,    as   in    1841.      Comely   Introd.   Compend.    118 
responds  that  no  one  difference  touches  faith  or  conduct,  and  it  is 
for  such  purposes  alone  that  the  Vulgate  was  authorized  at  Trent; 
Gigot  Introduction  338,  however,  takes  a  more  serious  view  of  the 
differences,  and  Vercellone  declares  that  some  do  touch  dogmatic 


63.  The  Benedictines  published  at  Paris  a  complete  edition  of 
Jerome's  works,  and  the  first  volume  in  1693  was  his  translation; 
Home  Introduction  II.  Part  ii,  54.     Vallarsi  in  1734  reedited  the 
translation  in  his  complete  collection,  entitling  it  Divina  Biblio- 
theca;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  882a. 

64.  Rule  III.  allows  the  bishop  to  sanction  a  version  of  the  Old 


APPENDIX  205 

Testament  as  an  elucidation  of  the  Vulgate,  not  as  the  sound  text. 
It  stipulates  that  the  version  must  be  approved  by  the  Catholic 
Faculty  of  a  University  or  by  the  Inquisition.  See  Buckley 
Canons  and  Decrees  of  Trent,  1851. 

65.  For  instance,  a  London  edition  and  a  New  York  edition 
taken  at  random  and  opened  a  dozen  times  at  random  read 
differently  at  Matt  1  18,  Mk  1  21,  Jno  1  40,  Acts  2  10,  Rom  9  20, 
Gal  3  3,  Eph  2  4,  II  Th  2  12,  Heb  9  4,  Jas  1  23, 1  Pet  1  7,  Rev  22  17. 
Even  in  the  Old  Testament  a  similar  casual  examination  of  an 
Irish  edition  and  of  a  Scotch  picked  up  at  hazard  discloses  trivial 
discrepancies  on  every  page  tested.     Some  of  these  are  of  no 
importance  whatever  for  the  sense,  some  may  possibly  be  put 
down  to  the  proof-reader,  some  to  editorial  discretion ;  but  what- 
ever the  explanation,  the  fact  remains  that  the  editions  do  not 
tally  exactly. 

66.  Lingard  says,  without  quoting  his  source,  that  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel  were  read  in  English:    History  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Church  399.     Bede's  version  of  John  has  perished.     Caedmon's 
metrical  paraphrase  is  well  known  as  the  earliest  surviving  speci- 
men of  English.     Aldred  about  950  interlined  an  English  version 
into  a  fine  Latin  manuscript  called  the  Lindisf  arne  Gospels.     The 
Psalms  were  often  translated.     A  version  of  the  Gospels  is  pre- 
served at  Cambridge,  and  of  much  of  the  Old  Testament  at  Ox- 
ford.    Skeat  published  a  critical  edition  of  the  Gospels  in  three 
or  four  versions,  1871-1877.     The  court  of  Rome  probably  knew 
nothing  of  these  versions.     See  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  236-237; 
Gigot  Introduction  340-342. 

67.  Nicholas  of  Hereford  is  the  best  known  of  Wyclif 's  assist- 
ants;  his   original  manuscript  is  extant,  ending  at  Bar.  3  20. 
Wyclif  himself  had  the  largest  share  in  the  New  Testament  work. 
Gigot  Introduction  344. 

68.  The  manuscripts  of  the  Vulgate  employed,  contained  short 
prologues  by  Jerome  to  the  various  books,  which  were  translated, 
as  in  modern  Catholic  Bibles.     In  some  copies  may  be  found  the 
forged  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans,  but  this  was  not  translated  by 
Wyclif  or  by  his  reviser.     Westcott- Wright  A  General  View  of 
the  History  of  the  English  Bible  15. 


206  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

69.  This  revision  is  generally  attributed  to  John  Purvey,  an 
assistant  of  Wyclif  at  Lutterworth.     Gasquet  declares  that  this 
is  a  mistake,  due  simply  to  a  marginal  note  on  a  manuscript 
at  Dublin,  which  note  has  been  misread.     Other  experts  declare 
that  there  is  no  misreading,  and  that  the  character  of  the  revision 
and  of  the  prologue  accord  with  the  writings  acknowledged  by 
Purvey.     His  subsequent  change  of  opinions  readily  accounts 
for  his  not  claiming  this  as  his  work.     A  few  extracts  from  the 
prologue  will  be  of  interest  as  showing  the  method  pursued: 
"First  .  .  .  with  diuerse  felawis  and  helperis,  to  gedere  manie 
elde  biblis,  and  othere  doctouris,  and  comune  glosis  and  to  make 
oo  Latyn  Bible  sumdel  trewe;  and  thanne  to  studie  it  of  the  newe, 
the  text  with  the  glosse  .  .  the  thridde  tyme  to  counseile  withelde 
gramariens  .  .  the  iiij.  tyme  to  translate  as  cleerli  as  he  code  to 
the  sentence,  and  to  haue  manie  gode  felawis  and  kunnynge  at  the 
correcting  of  the  translacioun.  .     The  comune  Latyn  Biblis  han 
more  nede  to  be  correctid,  as  manie  as  I  haue  seen  in  my  lif,  than 
hath  the  English  Bible  late  translatid."     This  last  remark  agrees 
with  the  estimate  of  Roger  Bacon  a  century  earlier;  but  the 
elaborate  tables  of  corrections  drawn  up  in  Paris  must  have  been 
available  for  Oxford  scholars.     See  Gigot  Introduction  344;  Lup- 
ton  in  Hastings  V.  240a.     The  glosses  referred  to  were  explana- 
tory notes  or  comments;  the  best  of  these  in  the  Middle  Ages  were 
by  Nicolas  a  Lyra,  once  perhaps  a  Jew,  then  a  Franciscan  friar. 
His  exposition  deeply  influenced  Luther  afterward. 

70.  Canon  Knighton  of  Leicester,    speaking  of  the  Gospel, 
which  he  regarded  as  intrusted   by  Christ  to  the  clergy  and 
doctors  for  them  to  dispense  to  the  laity,  regretted  that  "this 
master  John  Wyclif  has  translated  from  Latin  into  a  tongue, 
Anglican  not  Angelic,  so  that  through  him  it  becomes  common, 
and  is  more  open  to  laymen  and  women  able  to  read  than  it  used 
to  be  to  lettered  and  intelligent  clergy.     Thus  the  gospel  pearl  is 
scattered  and  trodden  underfoot  by  swine."    A  few  years  before 
Wyclif  some  fragments  of  versions  were  undertaken  for  use  in 
monasteries;  but  the  translator  vows  that  if  he  yields  to  the  re- 
quest of  the  monk  and  nun  who  asked  for  them,  "y  moste  in  cas 
vnderfonge  the  deth."    Even  he  does  not  contemplate  that  his 


APPENDIX  207 

work  will  pass  into  the  hands  of  the  unprofessed  and  ignorant 
laity.  And  he  is  earnest  to  warn  his  monastic  readers  that  this 
version  is  not  to  replace,  but  to  supplement  the  Latin.  The  notes 
and  memoranda  on  the  surviving  manuscripts  show  that  it  was 
made  for  people  in  orders,  and  owned  by  them.  Paues  A  Four- 
teenth Century  English  Version. 

71.  Home  Introduction  II.  Part  ii,  67;  historical  account  in 
Bagster  Hexapla  33. 

72.  The  Southern  Convocation  at  Oxford  in  1408  enacted  and 
ordained  "that  no  one  henceforth  do  by  his  own  authority  trans- 
late  any  text  of  Holy  Scripture  into  the  English  tongue,  or  any 
other,  by  way  of  book  or  treatise:  nor  let  any  such  book  or  treatise 
now  lately  composed  in  the  time  of  John  Wyclif  aforesaid,  or 
since,  or  hereafter  to  be  composed,  be  read  in  whole  or  in  part,  in 
public  or  in  private,  under  the  pain  of  the  greater  excommuni- 
cation."    Wilkins  Consilia  Magnce  Britannice  et  Hibernice  III. 
317.     This  was  a  distinct  breach  with  a  fine  English  tradition. 
For  Bishop  Grosseteste  of  Lincoln  had  said  about  1275,  "It  is 
the  will  of  God  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  translated 
by  many  translators,  so  that  what  is  obscurely  expressed  by 
one  may  be  more  perspicuously  rendered  by  another."      And 
Archbishop  Thursby  of  York,   shortly  before   1373,  published 
an  English  exposition  of  the  Creed,  the  Commandments,  and 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  forcibly  objecting  to  the  new  doctrine  that 
the  people  should  be  forbidden  the  use  of  the  Bible.      Even 
Archbishop  Arundel  in    1394,    when   he  was  in  deep  disgrace 
with  King  Richard,  praised  Queen  Anne  for  studying  the  four 
Gospels  in  English,  and  said    "Against  them  that  say  the  gospel 
in  English  would  make  men  err,  do  they  know  that  in  the  Latin 
are  more  heretics  than  of  all  others."     But  in  1408,  when  under 
a  weak  king  he  was  free  to  speak  his  mind  and  take  his  own  way, 
this  same  Archbishop  presided  over  the  Convocation  which  re- 
versed the  old  policy  and  followed  on  the  lines  of  the  French 
Council  of  Toulouse  and  the  German  Council  of  Trier.     The  new 
decree  is  plainly  referred  to  in  the  Myroure  of  our  Ladye,  after 
1415,  where  we  read,   "Yt  is  forboden  vnder  payne  of  cur- 
synge  that  no  man  schulde  haue  ne  drawe  eny  texte  of  holy 


208  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

scrypture   in-to  Englysshe  wythout    lycense    of    the   bysshop 
dyocesan." 

The  authorship  and  circulation  of  this  version  have  been 
much  discussed.  Gasquet  has  cleared  up  some  points,  and  the 
renewed  study  initiated  by  him  has  cleared  up  more.  The  sen- 
tences in  the  text  are  brief,  but  some  pains  have  been  devoted  to 
insure  that  they  are  accurate,  and  to  discriminate  between  the 
new  hostility  of  the  English  clergy,  and  the  tolerant  attitude  of 
the  Roman  court.  Gigot's  note,  Introduction  345,  says  the  very 
utmost  that  can  be  plausibly  claimed. 

73.  Lechler-Lorimer  John  Wydiffe  and  his  English  Precursors 
209;  also  Gasquet   The  Old  English  Bible  and  Other  Essays. 
As  instances  of  the  popular  use,  we  find    from    Foxe    Book 
of  Martyrs  175,  that  in  1511  James  Brewster  of  St.  Nicho- 
las, Colchester,  owned  "a  certain  little  book  of  scripture  in  Eng- 
lish, of  an  old  writing,  almost  worn  for  age."    And  John  Tewkes- 
bury  "had  studied  holy  scriptures  by  the  space  of  then  17  years" 
in  1529,  when  they  had  only  been  printed  in  English  for  three 
years.     Mr.  Bradshaw  pointed  out  that  the  success  of  the  revised 
Wyclif  was  so  great,  it  completely  stopped  the  copying  of  Latin 
Bibles  in  England.     See  Wright's  note  on  p.  15  of  the  third  edi- 
tion of  Westcott  General  View. 

74.  The  writer  has  cursorily  seen  a  dozen  copies. 

75.  Gasquet  claimed  in   1894  that  the  version  in  question 
is  wrongly  attributed  to  Wyclif,  and  that  it  is  the  authorized 
Catholic  version  of  the  Middle  Ages.     He  was  answered  next  year 
by  Matthew,  and  also  by  Kenyon  of  the  British  Museum,  but 
maintained  his  opinion,  republishing  it  in  1897.     Gigot  disagrees 
with  him,  and  his  only  convert  seems  to  be  a  Catholic,  J.  M. 
Stone,  who  adduces  no  new  fact,  nor  notices  the  counter  argu- 
ments.    See  Bibliography.     Indeed,  if  before  Luther  came  into 
prominence,  Englishmen  were  punished  for  using  or  owning  the  au- 
thorized Catholic  version,  what  was  authorization  worth?  But  the 
fact  of  this  claim  being  made  is  admirable  testimony  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  version,  and  of  its  acceptability  to  one  scholarly  Catholic  to- 
day.    Wright  sums  up  that  "the  Wycliffite  origin  of  the  transla- 
tions .  .  has  been  reestablished."     Westcott  General  View  20. 


APPENDIX  209 

76.  Purvey's  revision  of  the  New  Testament  was  edited  by 
Lewis  in  1731,  and  reprinted  by  Baber  in  1810.      A  new  edition 
is  in    Bagster    Hexapla,    1841.     The    original    unrevised  New 
Testament  of  Wyclif  was  first  printed  in  1848  by  Lea  Wilson. 
The  whole  Bible  in  both  editions  was  edited  by  Forshall  and  Mad- 
den in  1850,  and  Purvey 's  New  Testament  was  reprinted  from 
this  in  1879.     There  are  also  reprints  of  other  portions.     All  have 
been  inspected,  and  some  are  owned  by  the  writer.     Nisbet's 
Scottish  version  was  printed  for  the  Scottish  Text  Society  in 
1901. 

77.  Twenty  extracts  from  early  versions  were  originally  sub- 
mitted in  this  note,  illustrating  the  independence  of  all  before 
Tyndale.     Six  of  the  simplest  and  most  readable  are  here  re- 
tained: 

Gen  1  1-5. 

(a)  Revised  Wyclif  (c.  1388): 

In  the  bigynnyng  God  made  of  nought  hevene  and  erthe,  for- 
sothe  the  erthe  was  idil  and  voyde,  and  derknessis  weren  on  the 
face  of  deppe;  and  the  Spiryt  of  the  Lord  was  borne  on  the  watris. 
And  God  sayde,  light  be  maad,  and  light  was  maad.  And  God 
saw  the  light  that  it  was  good,  and  he  departide  the  light  fro 
derknessis,  and  he  clepide  the  light  day,  and  the  derknessis  nyght; 
and  the  eventid,  and  morntid  was  maad  one  day. 

(6)  Caxton  (1483): 

In  the  begynnyng  god  made  and  created  heuen  and  erthe/ 
The  erthe  was  ydle  and  voyde  and  couerd  with  derknes  And 
the  spyrite  of  god  was  born  on  the  watres/  And  god  said/  Be 
made  lyght/  And  anon  lyght  was  made/  And  god  sawe  that 
lyght  was  good/  And  dyuyded  the  lyght  fro  derknes/  &  called 
the  lyght  day/  and  derknes  nyght  And  thus  was  made  lyght 
with  heuen  and  erthe  fyrst/  and  euen  and  mornyng  was  made 
one  day/ 

Job  31  3S-49  in  three  versions. 

(c)  Purvey  (Skeat's  reprint  of  Forshall  and  Madden) : 

who  gyueth  an  helpere  to  me,  that  Almygti  God  here  my 
desire?  that  he  that  demeth,  write  a  book,  that  Y  bere  it  in  my 
schuldre,  and  cumpasse  it  as  a  coroun  to  me?  Bi  alle  my  degrees 


210  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Y  schal  pronounce  it,  and  Y  schal  as  offre  it  to  the  prynce.  If 
my  lond  crieth  agens  me,  and  hise  forewis  wepen  with  it;  if  Y 
eet  fruytis  thereof  with  out  money,  and  Y  turmentide  the  soule  of 
erthetileris  of  it;  a  brere  growe  to  me  for  wheete,  and  a  thorn  for 
barli. 

(d)  Coverdale  (Bagster's  reprint  of  the  1535  edition) : 

O  that  I  had  one  which  wolde  heare  me.  Lo,  this  is  my  cause. 
Let  ye  Allmightie  geue  me  answerer  &  let  him  that  is  my  cotrary 
party,  sue  me  with  a  lybell.  Then  shall  I  take  it  vpon  my  shulder, 
&  as  a  garlade  aboute  my  heade.  I  haue  tolde  the  nombre  of  my 
goinges,  and  delyuered  them  vnto  him  as  to  a  prynce.  But  yf 
case  be  that  my  londe  crie  agaynst  me,  or  yt  the  forowes  thereof 
make  eny  complaynte:  yf  I  haue  eaten  the  frutes  thereof  vnpayed 
for,  yee  yf  I  haue  greued  eny  of  the  plow  men :  Than,  let  thistles 
growe  in  steade  of  my  wheate,  &  thornes  for  my  barlye. 

(e)  Challoner's  Catholic  (Denvir's  text) : 

Who  would  grant  me  a  hearer,  that  the  Almighty  may  hear  my 
desire:  and  that  he  himself  that  judge th  would  write  a  book, 
That  I  may  carry  it  on  my  shoulder,  and  put  it  about  me  as  a 
crown?  At  every  step  of  mine  I  would  pronounce  it,  and  offer  it 
as  to  a  prince.  If  my  land  cry  against  me,  and  with  it  the  furrows 
thereof  mourn.  If  I  have  eaten  the  fruits  thereof  without  money, 
and  have  afflicted  the  soul  of  the  tillers  thereof:  Let  thistles  grow 
up  to  me  instead  of  wheat,  and  thorns  instead  of  barley. 

In  this  passage  the  Vulgate  has  missed  the  sense  of  the  opening 
phrases,  and  so  the  authorized  Catholic  versions  are  bound  to 
give  faulty  renderings.  Other  modern  Catholic  editions  give  the 
same  words  as  Denvir's  text,  but  the  punctuation  is  even  more 
mysterious. 

(/)  Passage  from  the  Rheims  Testament,  illustrating  how  every 
word  not  borrowed  from  previous  versions  is  due  to  the  Vulgate: 

[Words  from  Wyclif,  Tyndale,  or  Coverdale's  diglot  are  in  CAP- 
ITALS. NoT7  renderings  are  in  ordinary  type,  with  Vulgate  in 
brackets.] 

I  Tim  4  1-5 
And  THE  SPIRIT  manifestly  (Manifeste)  SAITH  THAT  IN 


APPENDIX  211 

THE  LAST  TIMES  certain  (Quidam)  SHAL  DEPART  FROM 
THE  FAITH  atTENding  (Attendentes)  TO  SPIRITES  OF  ER- 
ROUR,  AND  DOCTRINES  OF  DIUELS,  SPEAKing  LIES  IN 
HYPOCRISIE,  AND  HAUING  THEIR  CONSCIENCE  seared 
(cauteriatam),  FORBIDDING  TO  MARIE,  TO  ABSTAINS 
FROM  MEATES  WHICH  GOD  CREATED  TO  RE- 
CEAUE  WITH  THANKES-GIUING  for  the  FAITHFUL, 
(fidelibus)  AND  THEM  THAT  HAUE  KNOVVEN  THE 
TRUTH.  FOR  euery  (omnis)  CREATURE  OF  GOD  IS 
GOOD,  AND  NOTHING  TO  BE  reiected  (rejiciendum)  that 
(quod)  is  RECEIUED  WITH  THANKES-GIUING.  FOR  IT 
IS  SANCTIFIED  BY  THE  WORD  OF  GOD  AND  PRAIER. 

78.  Two  impressions  of  Caxton  and  two  of  Wynken  de  Worde 
have  been  seen  by  the  writer,  and  one  has  been  carefully  examined. 
The  Temple  Classics  furnish  a  handy  modern  reprint.     The  work 
was  the  largest  Caxton  ever  printed,  and  proved  to  supply  a 
wide  popular  demand.     He  originated  the  rendering  "breeches" 
in  Gen  3  7,  which  reappeared  in  the  Genevan  Bible  of  1560. 

79.  Fritzsche  enumerates  ten  editions  of  the  Bible  in  German 
dialects  alone  before  Luther  was  born.      They  made  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Mainz  uneasy,  and  in  1486  he  tried  to  check  them. 
Schaff  II.  866.     Green  Handbook  of  Church  History  577. 

80.  Seebohm  Era  of  the  Protestant  Revolution  85. 

81.  Gardiner  Student's  History  of  England  377. 

82.  Lovett  Life  of  Tyndale  5a. 

83.  Lovett  Tyndale  3a. 

84.  Wharton's  notes  to  Strype  Cranmer;  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  Reformation,  II,  465. 

85.  See  Bibliography! 

86.  "  Life  of  Allen  "  by  Thompson  Cooper  in  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography. 

87.  Carleton  Rheims  and  the  English  Bible  15-16. 

88.  "  Life  of  Martin  "  by  Thompson  Cooper  in  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography;   Newman    Tracts  Theological  and  Eccles- 
iastical. 361;  Gigot  Introduction  347. 

89.  There  is  a  vague  impression  that  the  Catholic  version  is 


212  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

independent.  This  will  be  dispelled  by  a  glance  at  the  last  extract 
in  note  77.  Note  138  supplies  another  conclusive  proof  that 
the  modern  Catholic  versions  are  enormously  indebted  to 
Tyndale.  For  obligations  to  the  Genevan  see  Westcott  General 
View  245. 

90.  Carleton  Rheims  5-8,  19-20.     It  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
University  clannishness  showed  itself  in  the  attention  paid  to  the 
work  of  Taverner,  the  only  previous  Oxford  translator. 

91.  Newman  Traces  361. 

92.  The  preface  has  been  rather  unfairly  represented  by  some 
writers,  who  amuse  themselves  with  the  fact  that  within  ten 
years  the  Vulgate  text  which  they  had  used  was  superseded  by 
the  Roman  authorized  edition,  forgetting  that  this  was  edited 
by  one  of  the  Douay  scholars  themselves.     The  present  writer 
has  been  struck  with  the  critical  acumen  shown  at  that  date,  and 
the  grasp  of  the  relative  value  of  the  common  Greek  manuscripts 
and  the  Latin  version.     Many  of  the  remarks  made  are  most 
just,  and  have  since  been  generally  acted  on  by  scholars.     Ap- 
parently this  was  the  first  application  of  these  principles  to  the 
criticism  of  the  New  Testament  text,  and  probably  it  was  the  first 
enunciation  of  them.     A  searching  examination  would  very  likely 
place  Allen  at  the  very  center  of  the  English  textual  scholars, 
marking  the  transition  from  Ceolfrid,  Bede,  Alcuin,  ^Elfric,  Bacon, 
and  Harding,  to  the  new  learning  represented  by  Walton,  Fell, 
Mill,  Bentley,  Kennicott,  Tregelles,  Westcott  and  Hort.    Few  men 
have  had  similar  opportunities  of  editing  standard  editions  in  two 
influential  languages,  or  have  employed  them  so  well. 

93.  Carleton  Rheims  22. 

94.  This  is  the  actual  edition  used  by  the  writer,  though  he 
has  seen  the  original  and  Fulke,  and  owns  modern  reprints  of 
1582. 

95.  Newman  Tracts  363. 

96.  The  preface  is  shorter  than  that  to  the  New  Testament, 
but  goes  on  the  same  lines,  criticising  the  four  Protestant  editions. 
It  avows  that  this  Douay  Version  is  to  refute  the  Lutheran  slander 
that  Catholics  would  not  translate,  and  that  to  remedy  the  cor- 
ruptions of  these  new  masters,  Catholic  pastors  were  setting  forth 


APPENDIX  213 

true  and  sincere  translations  in  most  languages  of  the  Latin 
Church.     See  also  Gigot  Introduction  348. 

97.  Darlow  and  Moule  Historical  Catalogue  of  Printed  Bibles 
L  257. 

98.  Gigot  Introduction  353;  Darlow  Catalogue  261. 

99.  Gigot  Introduction  353;  Darlow  Catalogue  268. 

100.  Cardinal  Newman  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Rheims-Douay  Version  has  never  been  directly  approved  by  any 
bishop,  much  less  by  the  Holy  See  itself.     Doubtless  the  remark 
is  correct,  but  it  is  irrelevant.     The  Rules  approved  by  Pius  IV 
do  not  stipulate  for  more  than  leave  from  a  faculty  of  a  Catholic 
University,  and  these  three  versions  were  formally  approved, 
the  first  by  professors  at  Rheims  and  Douay,  Nary's  by  four 
Dublin  priests,  but  not  apparently  by  a  faculty  or  inquisition, 
though  he  himself  was  a  Doctor  of  Paris;  Witham's  by  Douay 
divines,   including  Challoner  for  the  second  volume.     Darlow 
Catalogue  268-269.     Further  it  deserves  much  attention  that  "the 
general  usage  of  the  Holy  See  is  not  to  interpose  its  judgment  in 
a  matter  of  so  much  delicacy"  as  a  foreign  vernacular  version — 
so  the  Cardinal  Prefect  of   Propaganda  wrote   to  Archbishop 
Kenrick. 

101.  Darlow  Catalogue  279-280.     Challoner  also  extensively 
revised  the  notes,  and  those  in  modern  cheap  editions  are  mostly 
based  on  his. 

102.  Newman  Tracts  364-376. 

103.  Gigot  Introduction  351. 

104.  Newman  Tracts  377.     If  the  Rouen  editions  of  1633  and 
1635  are  reckoned  together,  they  make  the  first  whole  Bible. 
Then  Challoner's  editions  of  1750  make  the  second;  the  Phila- 
delphia of  1790  the  third;  the  Dublin  of  1791  the  fourth.     But 
a  quarto  edition  of  the  whole  Bible  has  just  been  discovered,  the 
Old  Testament  1610  and  the  New  1600,  issued  at  Amsterdam. 
See  Bibliography  and  Darlow  Catalogue  173,  279. 

105.  Darlow  Catalogue  327. 

106.  Not  the  printing  of  this  version  is  in  question,  only  its 
general  circulation.   After  the  Council  of  Trent,  ten  Rules  concern- 
ing prohibited  books  were  put  forth  by  Pope  Pius  IV,  the  fourth 


214  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

of  which  stipulates  that  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  vernacular 
can  be  allowed  only  to  those  who  have  leave  from  their  priests 
or  confessors,  and  if  they  be  regular  clergy,  from  the  head  also. 
When  therefore  Pius  VI  applauded  the  learning  of  Martini  and 
even  agreed  that  the  faithful  should  be  excited  to  the  reading  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  this  did  not  convey  any  general  permission 
for  any  one  to  read  this  version.  Nor  was  there  any  novel  de- 
parture in  the  next  five  Popes  enforcing  the  standing  rule  against 
indiscriminate  circulation,  as  detailed  in  note  225.  The  new 
emphasis  they  laid  on  the  matter  was  largely  due  to  the  formation 
of  Bible  Societies,  the  chief  of  which  had  as  its  sole  object  the 
wider  circulation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  without  note  or  com- 
ment. This  doubly  opposed  the  Rules  of  Pope  Pius  IV,  and 
therefore  reminders  were  issued  by  Pius  VII  and  his  successors, 
under  which  all  vernacular  versions,  including  Martini's,  were 
still  allowed  only  to  those  who  had  special  permission.  One  con- 
spicuous instance  of  the  application  of  the  Rule  was  given  in  the 
revolutionary  year  of  1849,  and  is  thus  described  by  Canton  in 
his  recent  History  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  II, 
255:  "At  Florence  an  edition  of  3,000  copies  of  Martini's  New 
Testament  speedily  left  the  press.  .  .  The  Sovereign  Pontiff 
himself,  in  an  encyclical  to  the  Italian  prelates  before  his  return 
from  Naples,  denounced  the  Society  and  its  Scriptures,  'trans- 
lated contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Church  into  the  vulgar  tongue, 
and  most  wretchedly  perverted.'  At  Florence  the  3,000  copies 
of  the  New  Testament  of  Martini,  a  Florentine  Archbishop,  were 
seized  by  the  restored  government,  the  presses  were  stopped,  the 
paper  and  type  were  carried  off,  the  printers  prosecuted."  This 
action  of  the  Tuscan  civil  authorities — though  they  erred  in  sup- 
posing that  Martini's  Testament  was  expressly  aimed  at  in  these 
words — was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  Rules  of  Pius  IV,  and  the 
exhortations  of  Pius  VII,  Leo  XII,  Pius  VIII,  Gregory  XVI,  and 
Pius  IX. 

107.  Home  Introduction  II.  Part  ii,  266. 

108.  Darlow  Catalogue  313. 

109.  Newman  Tracts  363. 

110.  Darlow  Catalogue  327. 


APPENDIX  215 

111.  Wright   Early  Bibles  of  America  60,   63,   78,  89,  121, 
126,  127. 

112.  Wright  Early  Bibles  69-71.     Perhaps  America  has  the 
honor  of  issuing  the  first  whole  Catholic  Bible  in  English,  bound 
in  one  volume.     See  note  104. 

113.  Cotton  Editions  of  the  Bible  112;  Newman  Tracts  377. 

114.  Newman  Tracts  385-386. 

115.  Newman  Tracts  391;  Darlow  Catalogue  329. 

116.  Newman  Tracts  391-393;  Cotton  Editions  119. 

117.  Newman  Tracts  377. 

118.  Darlow  Catalogue  331. 

119.  Newman  Tracts  386;  Darlow  Catalogue  333. 

120.  Newman  Tracts  363. 

121.  Darlow  Catalogue  334. 

122.  Newman  Tracts  387-388. 

123.  Newman  Tracts  388;  Darlow  Catalogue  341. 

124.  Newman  Tracts  388-389. 

125.  Newman  Tracts  387. 

126.  Dublin  Review  II.  476-477. 

127.  Newman  Tracts  390. 

128.  Gigot  Introduction  354. 

129.  Gigot  Introduction  355-358.     The  statements  are  drawn 
from  the  writer's  own  copy. 

130.  Gigot  Introduction  355-358. 

131.  Gigot  Introduction  352;    Newman  Tracts  395;   Lupton 
in  Hastings  V.  252b. 

132.  Newman  Tracts  398-399. 

133.  Cotton  Rhemes  and  Doway  156. 

134.  Gigot  Introduction  353. 

135.  Turning  over  the  pages  of  any  parallel  reprint  will  show 
the  large  originality  of  Tyndale.     Here  and  there  coincidences 
with  Wyclif  can  be  noticed,  but  in  view  of  his  express  words  it 
would  seem  that  these  are  probably  due  to  the  current  speech, 
which  appears  to  have  been  enriched  by  stock  quotations,  much 
as  people  who  have  neither  read  nor  seen  a  play  of  Shakespeare 
yet  use  phrases  coined  by  him.     While,  however,  his  English  is 
original,  it  is  evident  that  he  used  freely  the  familiar  Vulgate,  the 


216  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

new  Latin  version  of  Erasmus  and  the  new  German  version  of 
Luther,  yet  with  such  independence  as  to  amend  or  even 
reject  them.  See  Westcott  General  View  130-138,  316-319. 

136.  In  the  following  transcript  from  Tyndale's  version  of 
Ex  2,  published  in  1531,  words  which  are  found  identically 
in  modern  Catholic  and  also  in  the  1901  standard  American  edi- 
tion, are  in  CAPITALS.  The  passage  is  taken  at  random,  and 
the  spelling  is  modernized. 

And  THERE  WENT  A  MAN  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  LEVI 
AND  TOOK  A  daughter  of  Levi.  AND  the  wife  CONCEIVED 
AND  BORE  A  SON.  AND  when  she  saw  that  it  was  a  proper 
CHILD,  she  HID  HIM  THREE  MONTHS  long.  AND  WHEN 
SHE  COULD  no  LONGER  HIDE  HIM,  SHE  TOOK  a  basket 
OF  BULRUSHES  AND  DAUBED  IT  WITH  SLIME  AND 
PITCH,  AND  laid  THE  child  THEREIN,  AND  put  it  IN  THE 
flags  BY  THE  RIVER'S  BRINK.  And  HIS  SISTER  stood 
AFAR  OFF,  to  wit  WHAT  WOULD  come  of  it.  Ex  2  1-4. 
The  coincidences  of  language  here  cannot  be  largely  accidental. 
The  vocabulary  is  rather  rich,  and  obvious  synonyms  will  occur 
for  many  words,  which  have  not  been  utilized  by  modern  or 
ancient  editors.  Even  the  order  has  only  been  varied  once, 
though  rearrangement  was  often  possible. 

A  second  passage  is  taken  at  random  from  the  unique  fragment 
of  the  first  edition  of  Matthew. 

Again  I  SAY  unto  YOU  THAT  IF  TWO  OF  YOU  shall  agree 
in  EARTH  in  any  manner  THING  WHATSOEVER  THEY 
shall  desire,  IT  SHALL  BE  given  THEM  of  MY  FATHER  which 
IS  IN  HEAVEN.  FOR  WHERE  TWO  OR  THREE  are 
GATHERED  together  IN  MY  NAME  THERE  I  AM  IN  THE 
midst  OF  THEM.  THEN  PETER  came  to  HIM,  and  SAID, 
Master,  HOW  oft  SHALL  MY  BROTHER  trespass  against  ME 
AND  I  shall  FORGIVE  HIM?  shall  I  forgive  him  SEVEN 
TIMES?  JESUS  said  unto  HIM  I  SAY  NOT  unto  THEE 
SEVEN  TIMES  BUT  SEVENTY  TIMES  SEVEN  times. 
THEREFORE  IS  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  LIKENED 
unto  A  certain  KING  which  WOULD  TAKE  ACCOUNT  OF 
HIS  SERVANTS.  AND  WHEN  HE  HAD  BEGUN  TO  reckon 


APPENDIX  217 

ONE  WAS  BROUGHT  unto  HIM  which  OWED  HIM  TEN 
THOUSAND  TALENTS:  but  when  HE  HAD  nought  TO  PAY 
the  LORD  COMMANDED  him  to  BE  SOLD  AND  HIS  WIFE 
AND  his  CHILDREN  AND  ALL  THAT  HE  HAD  AND  PAY- 
MENT TO  BE  MADE.  The  SERVANT  fell  DOWN  and  be- 
sought HIM  SAYING  Sir  give  ME  respite  AND  I  WILL  PAY  it 
every  whit.  Then  had  THE  LORD  PITY  on  the  SERVANT 
and  loosed  HIM  AND  FORGAVE  HIM  THE  DEBT.  Matt 

18  19-27. 

A  third  extract  may  be  taken  from  a  less  familiar  portion, 
such  as  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Here  the  language  of  Tyndale  is 
taken  from  his  edition  of  1534,  not  his  first,  nor  his  final  revision. 

I  thanke  MY  GOD  MAKINGS  mencion  all  wayes  OF  THE 
IN  MY  PRAYERS,  when  I  heare  OF  THY  love  AND  FAYTH, 
\\HICH  THOU  HAST  towarde  THE  LORDE  JESU,  AND 
TOWARDE  ALL  SAYNCTES:  so  THAT  THE  felUsshippe 
that  thou  hast  in  the  FAYTH,  is  frutefull  thorow  KNOWL- 
EDGE OF  all  GOOD  thinges,  which  are  IN  YOU  by  JESUS 
CHRIST.  And  we  have  great  IOYE,  AND  consolation  over 
THY  love:  For  by  THE  (BROTHER)  THE  SAYNCTES  hertes 
are  comforted.  WHERFOR  THOUGH  I  be  bolde  IN  CHRIST 
TO  enioyne  THE,  THAT  WHICH  becommeth  the:  yet  FOR 
loves  SAKE  I  RATHER  BESECHE  the,  though  I  be  as  I  am, 
even  PAUL  aged,  AND  NOW  in  bondes  for  lesu  Christes  sake. 
I  BESECHE  THE  FOR  MY  sonne  ONESIMUS,  WHOM  I 
begat  IN  MY  BONDES,  which  in  tyme  passed  was  TO  THE 
VNPROFFETABLE:  BUT  NOW  PROFFETABLE  bothe  TO 
THE  AND  also  to  ME,  WHOM  I  HAVE  SENT  home  agayne. 
Thou  therfore  receave  him,  that  is  to  saye,  myne  awne  bowels, 
WHOM  I  WOLDE  fayne  HAVE  retayned  WITH  ME,  THAT  IN 
THY  stede  HE  myght  have  ministred  vnto  ME  IN  THE  BONDES 
OF  THE  GOSPELL.  Neverthelesse,  WITHOUT  THY  mynde 
WOLDE  I  DOO  NOTHING,  THAT  that  GOOD  which  springeth 
of  the,  shuld  NOT  BE  AS  it  were  OF  NECESSITIE,  BUT 
willingly.  Haply  HE  therfore  dePARTED  FOR  A  SEASON 
THAT  THOU  shuldest  receave  HIM  FOR  EVER,  not  nowe 
AS  A  SER VAUNT:  BUT  above  A  SERVAUNT,  I  meane 


218  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

A  BROTHER  beloved,  SPECIALLY  TO  ME:  BUT  HOW 
MOCHE  more  vnto  THE,  BOTH  IN  THE  FLESSHE,  AND 
also  IN  THE  LORDE?  YF  THOU  COUNT  ME  A  felowe, 
RECEAVE  HIM  AS  MY  SELFE.  YF  HE  HAVE  hurte 
THE  OR  oweth  the  ought,  that  laye  TO  MY  charge.  I  PAUL 
have  written  IT  WITH  MYNE  AWNE  HONDE,  I  WILL 
recompence  IT.  So  that  I  do  NOT  SAYE  to  THE,  howe 
THAT  THOU  OWEST  vnto  ME  even  THYNE  AWNE  SILFE. 
Even  so  BROTHER,  let  me  enlOYE  THE  IN  THE  LORDE. 
Comforte  MY  bowels  in  the  Lorde.  Trusting  IN  THYNE 
OBEDIENCE,  I  wrote  vnto  THE,  KNOWYNGE  THAT 
THOU  WILT  DO  more  then  I  SAYE  for.  Moreover  PRE- 
PARE ME  LODGYNGE:  FOR  I  trust  THOROW  the  helpe 
of  YOURE  PRAYERS,  I  SHAL  BE  geven  VNTO  YOU. 

Vs.  4-22. 

An  extract  from  Tyndale's  version  of  Eph  2,  will  show  how 
he  has  left  his  mark  on  the  1611  version  and  through  that  on 
modern  Catholic  editions,  which  discard  the  extremely  crabbed 
translation  of  Martin  in  the  Rheims  Testament. 

Wherfore  remember  THAT  YE  beynge  in  tyme  passed  GEN- 
TYLS  IN  THE  FLESSHE,  and  were  CALLED  VNCIRCUM- 
CISION  to  them  WHICH  are  CALLED  CIRCUMCISION  IN 
THE  FLESSHE,  which  circumcision  is  MADE  BY  HONDES: 
Remember  I  saye,  THAT  YE  WERE  AT  THAT  TYME  with 
oute  CHRIST,  and  were  reputed  ALIANTES  FROM  THE 
common  welth  OF  ISRAEL  AND  were  STRAUNGERS  from 
the  testamentes  OF  PROMES,  and  had  NO  HOPE,  AND  were 
WITH  OUT  GOD  IN  this  WORLDS.  BUT  NOW  IN  CHRIST 
IESU,  YE  which  a  whyle  agoo  WERE  FARRE  OF,  ARE  MADE 
NYE  by  THE  BLOUDE  OF  CHRIST.  FOR  HE  IS  OUR 
PEACE,  whych  hath  MADE  of  BOTH  ONE,  AND  hath  broken 
DOUNE  THE  WALL  that  was  a  stoppe  bitwene  vs,  and  hath 
also  put  awaye  thorow  HIS  FLESSHE,  the  cause  of  hatred 
(that  is  to  saye,  THE  LAWE  OF  COMMAUNDEMENTS  CON- 
TAYNED  IN  the  lawe  written)  for  to  make  of  twayne  ONE 
NEWE  MAN  IN  HIM  SILFE,  so  MAKYNGE  PEACE:  AND 
to  RECONCILE  BOTH  vnto  GOD  IN  ONE  BODY  thorow  his 


APPENDIX  219 

CROSSE,  and  slewe  hatred  therby:  AND  came  and  PREACHED 
PEACE  TO  YOU  which  WERE  a  FARRE  OF,  AND  TO 
THEM  THAT  WERE  NYE:  FOR  thorow  HIM  WE  BOTH 
HAVE  an  open  waye  in,  IN  ONE  SPRETE  vnto  THE  FATHER. 
Therfore  now  YE  ARE  NO  MOARE  STRAUNGERS  AND 
foreners:  BUT  CITESYNS  WITH  THE  SAYNCTES,  AND  of 
the  householde  OF  GOD:  and  are  BILT  APON  THE  FOUN- 
DACION  OF  THE  APOSTLES  AND  PROPHETES,  IESUS 
CHRIST  BEYNGE  THE  heed  CORNER  STONE,  IN  WHOM 
every  BILDYNGE  coupled  TOGEDDER,  GROWETH  vnto 
AN  HOLY  TEMPLE  IN  THE  LORDE,  IN  WHOM  YE  ALSO 
ARE  BILT  TOGEDDER,  and  made  AN  HABITACION  for 
GOD  IN  THE  SPRET.  Eph  2  11-22. 

These  passages  have  not  been  chosen  to  bear  out  a  ready-made 
theory;  but  they  have  been  taken,  two  absolutely  at  random, 
others  to  insure  variety,  but  with  no  idea  of  what  the  result  would 
be.  The  examination  shows  that  out  of  1,109  words  used  by 
Tyndale,  796  are  at  the  present  day  used  by  both  Catholics  and 
Protestants — more  than  71  per  cent. 

137.  Preface  to  Genesis  396  in  the  reprint  by  the  Parker  So- 
ciety. 

138.  Mombert  disputed  any  connection  with  Marburg.    Schaff- 
Herzog  II.  733a.     But  other  books  have  since  been  found  which 
bear  a  similar  colophon,  so  that  it  seems  while  Hans  Luft  had  his 
chief  press  at  Wittenberg,  he  really  did  print  for  Tyndale  at 
"Malborowe  in  the  londe  of  Hesse."     See  Darlow  Catalogue  3. 

139.  Fritzsche  in  Schaff-Herzog  II.  86 7b. 

140.  "I  call  God  to  recorde  against  ye  day  we  shall  appeare 
before  our  Lord  Jesus,  to  geue  a  recknyng  of  our  doings,  that  I 
neuer  altered  one  sillable  of  Gods  Word  agaynst  my  coscience, 
nor  would  this  day,  if  all  that  is  in  the  earth,  whether  it  be  pleas- 
ure, honour,  or  riches,  might  be  geuen  ma."    Tyndale's  letter  to 
Frith  in  1533. 

141.  The  illustrations  already  given  prove  the  enormous  in- 
debtedness of  modern  Catholics  to  Tyndale.     Gigot  does  not 
repeat  More's  attack  on  his  accuracy;  Introduction  345-346,  358- 
360. 


220  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

142.  Allen  at  least  would  agree  that  "the  dangers  which  arise 
from  reading  certain  more  difficult  passages  may  be  obviated 
by  suitable  notes." 

143.  Anderson  Annals  of  the  English  Bible  42-48.    The  revised 
editions  of  1534  and  1535  are  furnished  afresh  with  prologues, 
largely  based  on  Luther,  with  references,  subject-headings,  and 
notes;  from  these  the  coarse  polemical  element  is  absent,  explana- 
tion and  advice  predominating.     Darlow  Catalogue  5,  6. 

144.  Lovett  Tyndale  14-15. 

145.  Cotton  MS  Galba  B.  x.  p.  338,  quoted  in  Tregelles  His- 
torical Account.     In  May,  1530,  an  assembly  was  held  to  consider 
several  recent  books,  and  in  June  a  royal  proclamation  was  issued 
to  suppress  Tyndale's  and  other  heretical  books,  promising  that, 
though  translation  of  Scripture  was  not  in  itself  necessary,  yet 
if  corrupt  translations  were  laid  aside  and  no  mischievous  opin- 
ions were  imbibed,  the  King  would  cause  Scripture  to  be  trans- 
lated "by  great,  learned,  and  Catholic  persons."     See  Gairdner  in 
the  Cambridge  Modern  History,  Reformation,  II.  465;  Westcott 
General  View  43.     Three  years  later,  More  was  still  eager  for  the 
use  of  Scripture  in  the  mother- tongue.     Letters  and  Papers  of  the 
Reign  of  Henry  VIII,  vi.  184. 

146.  Jonah  was  printed  separately,  and  was  not  incorporated 
into  any  popular  Bible;  one  single  copy  survives.     The  five  books 
of  Moses  were  printed  separately.     Joshua  to  Chronicles  were  not 
printed  in  his  lifetime,  but  the  manuscript  passed  into  the  hands  of 
John  Rogers,  chaplain  at  the  Merchants'  House  in  Antwerp,  and 
was  used  by  him  when  editing  the  Bible  curiously  known  as 
"Matthew's."     Darlow  Catalogue  15.     The  writer  has  seen  fac- 
similes of  the  first  Testaments,  and  copies  of  the  last  editions  of  the 
Testament  and  Pentateuch.     He  owns  reprints  of  the  editions  of 
1526  and  1534. 

147.  Strype  has  misled  many  writers  into  arguing  that  this 
version  must  have  been  Wyclif's.     But  Westcott  and  Wright 
show  that  there  is  no  authority  for  this  in  his  source,  which  is  the 
Harleian  MS  422,  Plutarch  Ixv.  E  87. 

148.  This  was  printed  in  1535,  probably  by  Christopher  Frosch- 
auer  of  Zurich.     But  in  1533-1534  an  act  of  Parliament  had 


APPENDIX  221 

limited  the  importation  of  books,  which  had  been  freely  permitted 
for  fifty  years;  henceforth  only  unbound  sheets  might  be  brought 
in.  An  English  printer,  apparently  Nycolson,  cancelled  the  early 
sheets,  printed  others  and  published.  Coverdale  acknowledges 
his  indebtedness  to  five  interpreters,  which  can  easily  be  identi- 
fied as  the  Zurich  German  Bible,  the  Latin  of  Sanctes  Pagninus, 
Luther's  German  Bible,  the  Vulgate,  and  Tyndale.  Darlow  and 
Moule  in  their  description  of  this  Bible,  Catalogue  6-8,  say  that 
he  drew  chiefly  from  the  first  two;  but  Westcott  and  Wright 
emphasize  the  dependence  on  Tyndale  for  the  New  Testament. 
In  Bagster  Memorials  of  Myles  Coverdale  203-213  are  passages 
from  the  Gospels  which  show  this,  and  specimens  from  the  other 
books  taken  at  random  will  illustrate  further ;  the  quotations  are 
from  Tyndale,  1534,  with  Coverdale 's  variations  bracketed;  Wy- 
clif's  is  very  different;  differences  of  spelling  are  neglected,  other- 
wise the  coincidences  are  close. 

I  Cor  14  1.  Labour  for  love.  Gal  3  1.  O  (add  ye)  folisshe 
Galathyans:  who  hath  bewitched  you,  that  ye  shuld  not  beleve 
the  treuth  ?  To  whom  lesus  Christ  was  described  before  the  eyes, 
and  among  you  crucified.  Heb  1  1-3.  God  in  tyme  past  di- 
versly  and  many  wayes,  spake  vnto  the  fathers  by  Prophetes: 
but  in  these  last  dayes  he  hath  spoken  vnto  vs  by  his  sonne, 
whom  he  hath  made  heyre  of  all  thinges:  by  whom  also  he  made 
the  worlde.  Which  sonne  beinge  the  brightnes  of  his  glory,  and 
(add  the)  very  ymage  of  his  substaunce,  bearing  vp  all  thinges 
with  the  worde  of  his  power,  hath  in  his  awne  person  pourged 
oure  synnes,  and  is  sitten  (set)  on  the  right  honde  of  the  maiestie 
an  hye.  Jas  3  7.  All  the  natures  of  beastes,  and  of  byrdes,  and 
of  serpentes,  and  thinges  of  the  see,  are  meked  and  tamed  of  the 
nature  of  man.  Rev  11  13.  And  in  the  erthquake  were  slayne 
names  of  men  seven  .M.  and  the  remnaunt  were  feared,  and  gave 
glory  to  god  of  heven. 

149.  In  1536  Cromwell  used  his  powers  as  Vicar-general  of  the 
King,  the  Supreme  Head  on  Earth  of  the  Church  of  England,  to 
issue  injunctions  ordering  every  church  within  twelve  months  to 
obtain  a  whole  Bible  "in  Latin  and  also  in  English."  Cam- 
bridge Modern  History,  Reformation,  II.  465,  This  accounts 


222  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

for  the  English  reprints  of  Coverdale  in  1537,  of  which  the  quarto 
bears  the  legend  cited  in  the  text.  Full  details  are  given  by 
Tregelles  Historical  Account  71-76.  Descriptions  may  be  seen 
in  Darlow  Catalogue  12-14.  The  writer  has  seen  these  editions. 

150.  Justice  Bradley  has  pointed  out  what  appears  to  be  an 
acknowledgment  of  debt  to  Tyndale.     The  only  addition  to  the 
text  was  the  Prayer  of  Manasses.     The  text  as  a  whole  became 
the  basis  of  all  subsequent  versions.     The  real  features  of  the 
edition  were  the  accessories,  which  were  chiefly  taken  from  con- 
tinental sources,  especially  the  French  Bibles  of  Olivetan  and 
Lefevre;  but  these  were  forbidden  after  1544,  and  the  reprints 
of  1549  have  new  or  revised  notes.     Darlow  Catalogue  15,  38; 
Westcott  General  View  336.     The  writer  has  seen  copies. 

151.  Questions  of  licensing  and  copyright  deserve  more  atten- 
tion than  they  often  receive  in  this  connection.     Papal  control 
of  the  press  was  asserted  in  a  Bull  of  1515,  and  with  that  prece- 
dent it  was  ordered  in  England  that  a  book  must  be  licensed  in 
manuscript  before  printing,  and  Thomas  Berthelet  was  appointed 
"Prynter  vnto  the  Kynges  grace"  in  1529.     (Enc.  Brit.  IV.  39o.) 
Next  year  the  law  was  enforced  by  a  general  burning  of  unlicensed 
books.     In  1538  anonymous  translations  were  forbidden,  licenses 
were  required  to  print  or  import  English  Scriptures,  and  the 
license  to  print  at  all  in  English  was  to  be  expressed  by  the  words 
"cum  privilegio  Regali  ad  imprimendum  solum."     (Cotton  MS 
Cleopatra  E.  v.  fol.  340b.)     This  last  word  seems  to  imply  a 
recognition  of  copyright;  the  word  "  Regali  "  dropped  out  quietly. 
In  1539  special  restriction  was  laid  for  five  years  on  diverse  ver- 
sions of  Scripture  by  requiring  license  from  Cromwell  (Pat.  3?.. 
lien.  8.  p.  4.  m.  15.     Rymer  Fcedera}.     In  1556  the  Stationers' 
Company  was  incorporated  with  a  monopoly  of  printing  and 
large  powers  to  enforce  this.     Under  Elizabeth  the  Star  Chamber 
also  supervised.     As  the  Company  derived  its  revenue  chiefly 
from  Bible  printing,  it  housed  the  revisers  of  1611  and  provided 
part  of  the  expense ;  but  long  litigation  arose  as  to  the  copyright 
in  the  Royal  Version,  for  which  see  Darlow  Catalogue  134-135. 
The  usage  of  the  Company  led  to  the  belief  that  copyright  in  all 
books  was  perpetual,  but  this  was  altered  generally  in  1774.    For 


APPENDIX  223 

the  Royal  Version,  apart  from  new  notes  or  apparatus,  perpetual 
copyright  is  still  vested  in  the  King's  Printer  and  in  the  Univer- 
sities of  Cambridge  and  Oxford,  the  former  asserting  privilege  and 
publishing  first  in  1591,  Oxford  entering  on  its  splendid  career 
only  in  1673. 

152.  Jacobs  Lutheran  Movement  in   England,   Philadelphia, 
1894. 

153.  Taverner's  Bible  seems  to  have  been  considerably  under- 
rated.    Writer  after  writer  has  repeated  gossip  about  his  personal 
appearance,  or  a  statement  that  his  work  exercised  little  or  no 
influence  on  subsequent  versions.     If  they  had  examined  it,  or 
had  recollected  the  existence  of  the  Douay  Bible,  they  would  have 
told  a  different  story.     The  writer's  attention  was  directed  to  it 
by  Carle  ton,  in  whose  160  pages  of  collation  will  be  found  abun- 
dant evidences  of  its  influence  on  the  Douay  Version.     A  copy  of 
the  first  edition  was  accessible  to  the  writer  for  verification. 

154.  Blunt  hi  Enc.  Brit.  VIII.  386-387. 

155.  Details  in  many  places,  e.g.,  Bagster  Memorials  80-94. 
Westcott  shows  that  Munster's  Hebrew-Latin  edition  and  com- 
mentary of  1535  helped  him  greatly.     Coverdale  seems  to  imply 
that  he  used  the  Complutensian  Polyglot:  State  Papers  I.  576. 

156.  It  has  been  alleged  that  this  phrase  means  that  the 
Epistles  and  Gospels  for  festivals,  etc.,  are  "pointed  out"  or 
marked,  as  is  still  the  custom  in  Bibles  prepared  for  Anglican 
churches.    Murray  Historical  Dictionary  gives  no  indication  that 
the  word  "apoynt"  ever  bore  such  a  technical  meaning.     And 
other  Bibles  before  and  at  the  same  time  were  similarly  marked, 
without  their  containing  this  notice:   for  instance,  Coverdale 's 
1535,  Matthew's  1537,  Taverner's  1539,  and  the  Great  Bible  of 
1539.     But  hi  September,  1538,  injunctions  to  the  clergy  had 
been  drafted,  ordering  them  to  obtain  "one  boke  of  the  whole 
Bible  in  the  largest  volume  in  Englyshe."    This  naturally  raised 
hopes  in  various  minds  of  securing  either  a  portion  of  the  trade, 
or  even  a  monopoly.     Two  rivals  had  strong  backing:  Taverner 
was  prompted  by  Cromwell,  and  had  the  use  of  the   King's 
Printer's  press,  but  the  fall  of  Cromwell  hi  July,  1540,  limited  his 
chances,  and  he  lost  the  special  recommendation.     Coverdale, 


224  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

who  was  editing  the  Great  Bible,  had  also  obtained  the  patronage 
of  Cranmer,  whose  power  was  unshaken;  and  what  was  more 
important,  he  was  financed  by  a  London  merchant,  working 
through  the  others  who  had  bought  "Matthew"  and  who  were 
being  drawn  into  the  printing  trade  by  the  French  Inquisition 
forbidding  their  work  to  be  done  in  Paris,  and  by  the  difficulty  of 
finding  good  English  establishments.  Anthony  Marler,  haber- 
dasher, speculated  in  six  large  editions  of  the  Great  Bible,  pro- 
curing a  preface  from  Cranmer,  presenting  a  magnificent  copy  to 
the  King,  and  securing  a  four  years'  monopoly  for  the  supply  of 
the  churches,  at  a  price  fixed  by  the  Privy  Council.  The  facts  are 
to  be  gleaned  from  Darlow,  and  are  set  forth  by  Anderson,  with- 
out a  clear  grasp  of  the  trade  rivalries  at  work.  Some  of  the  facts 
are  also  given  in  Bagster  Memorials.  See  also  Cambridge  Modern 
History,  Reformation,  II.  466. 

157.  The  six  editions  of  the  Great  Bible  in  1540-1541  are  often 
called  Cranmer's,  though  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  them  except 
writing  the  preface,  and  perhaps  securing  the  corrections  sug- 
gested by  the  bishops  as  mentioned  above.     Copies  of  the  first  and 
second  editions  have  been  seen  by  the  writer. 

158.  Darlow  Catalogue  59;  Cotton  Editions  30. 

159.  Darlow  Catalogue  60.     The  writer  has  seen  a  copy  and 
owns  a  reprint. 

160.  Darlow  Catalogue  61 ;  Westcott  General  View  91-92. 

161.  Darlow  Catalogue  89.     The  fact  that  this  Genevan  Version 
was  authorized  in  Scotland  seems  to  be  curiously  ignored  by 
most  people. 

162.  The  writer  has  seen  several  editions.     This  was  the  ver- 
sion used  by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers.     See  Arber  The  Story  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  95,   26,   etc.;    Anderson  Annals  588.     Arch- 
bishop Davidson  has  shown  that  stanch  Anglicans  used  it  as  late 
as  1624.     But  after  the  civil  wars  the  colonists  in  America  were 
restricted  to  import,  and  in  practice  could  only  obtain  the  Royal 
Version. 

163.  The  writer  has  seen  it,  with  a  note  by  Francis  Newport, 
who  gave  it.     The  story  is  often  incorrectly  told;  the  time  was 
January,  1558-1559;  place,  Little  Conduit  in  Cheapside. 


APPENDIX  225 

164.  Anderson  Annals  453. 

165.  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  250-251. 

166.  Darlow  Catalogue  115. 

167.  Gigot  Introduction  360-361 ;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  253a. 

168.  Gigot  Introduction  361 ;  Prothero  Statutes  and  Constitu- 
tional Documents,  1558  to  1625,  p.  416. 

169.  Gigot  Introduction  361 ;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  253-254. 

170.  Carleton  Rheims  22-25;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  256a. 

171.  The  version  is  popularly  called  the  "Authorized  Version," 
though  it  is  well  known  that  after  all  James's  intentions  as  to 
elaborate  authorization,  not  a  single  document  is  extant  that 
authorizes  it.     Curiously  enough  there  was  one  thing  about  it 
authorized  that  is  now  never  seen,  some  genealogies  and  maps, 
which  were  by  royal  order  to  be  bought  from  the  compiler  and 
inserted  in  every  copy  for  ten  years.     The  King's  Printer  bought 
the  copyright  of  the  text  from  the  revisers  for  £3,500,  and  re- 
tained it  till  1709,  though  with  much  disturbance  and  litigation. 
See  Darlow  Catalogue  135;  Anderson  Annals  483. 

172.  Gigot  Introduction  366-368;  Lupton  hi  Hastings  V.  258a. 

173.  Darlow  Catalogue  182;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  257a. 

174.  This  astonishing  figure  is  given  by  Baillie,  the  well-known 
Scots  commissioner  to  the  Long  Parliament.     See  Darlow  Cata- 
logue 184.     Archbishop  Abbot  in  1615  had  forbidden  the  binding 
or  sale  of  any  Bible  without  the  Apocrypha. 

175.  Anderson  Annals  487-488. 

176.  Preface  to  Weymouth  Resultant  Greek  Testament.     Gigot, 
however,  doubts  whether  this  new  "Textus  Receptus"  is  not 
overrated,  Introduction  252-259.     His  doubt  is  shared  by  con- 
servative Anglicans  like  Burgon  and  Scrivener,  as  also  by  the 
brilliant  Irish  Protestant  Salmon.     Perhaps  the  trend  of  modern 
opinion  is  towards  reconsidering  the  work  and  theories  of  West- 
cott  and  Hort,  and  revaluing  the  "  Western  Text. "     See  Strack  in 
Hastings  IV.  738a,  footnote.     On  the  other  hand,  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  has  printed  an  edition  by  Nestle  on  these 
lines,  and  desires  new  versions  to  be  conformed  to  it. 

177.  Gigot  Introduction  206;  Strack  in  Hastings  IV.  728b. 

178.  Kenyon  in  Hastings  V.  353b. 


226  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

179.  Gigot  Introduction  210-219;  Bebb  in  Hastings  IV.  853a; 
Burkitt  in  Cheyne  IV.  4978;  Margoliouth  in  Hastings  III.  31a; 
Strack  in  Hastings  IV.  731b;  White  in  Hastings  IV.  884b. 

180.  Scores  of  private  versions  have  been  published;  the  writer 
owns  several,  but  has  grown  weary  of  trying  to  enumerate  all. 
See  Gigot  Introduction  368-370. 

181.  The  outbreak  of  missionary  zeal  from  1789  onward  is 
largely  responsible  for  this.     At  Serampur  alone,  in  32  years, 
translations  of  parts  of  the  Bible  into  46  different  languages  came 
from  the  press.     Smith  Life  of  Carey  213-214. 

182.  Regulation  I  of  1826  and  1827. 

183.  Armitage  History  of  the  Baptists  894. 

184.  Armitage  History  907. 

185.  Darlow  Catalogue  362-363. 

186.  Darlow  Catalogue  372;  Armitage  History  907-909. 

187.  Only  five  of  the  1865  revisers  worked  on  the  1881-1885 
revisions;  in  America  Hackett,  Kendrick,  and  Schaff;  in  England 
Angus  and  Gotch.     Full  lists  may  be  seen  in  Biblical  Revision  or 
by  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  260-261. 

188.  For   acute   criticisms   see   Gigot    Introduction   367-378; 
Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  262-265.     The  chief  defects  seem  to  be, 
in  the  New  Testament  a  poor  English  style,  the  fault  charged  on 
Challoner  too,  and  in  the  Old  Testament  an  inadequate  use  of  the 
versions  of  antiquity. 

189.  Gigot  Introduction  377;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  262,  266. 
Be  it  remembered  that  the  Apocrypha  as  collected  by  Anglicans 
include  not  only  the  Catholic  deutero-canonical  books,  but  also 
I  Esdras  known  to  modern  Catholics  as  III  Esdras,  II  Esdras 
known  to  modern  Catholics  as  IV  Esdras,  and  the  Prayer  of 
Manasses. 

190.  Lupton  gives  a  further  criticism  of  the  American  edition 
in  Hastings  V.  269-271. 

191.  Gigot  gives  a  list  on  page  26  of  his  Introduction. 

192.  Gigot  Introduction  503,  505,  509. 

193.  Comely   discusses    these  points,   Introd.   Compend.    19, 
278-280,  420-423.     To  read  his  labored  pleas  is  to  see  how  little 
can  be  said;  but  it  may  be  worth  while  to  append  for  those  who  do 


APPENDIX  227 

not  wish  to  read  Latin,  the  terse  summaries  of  Protestants,  "The 
early  chapters  of  the  book  (of  Judith)  contain  historical  and  geo- 
graphical impossibilities,  and  the  later  chapters  much  self-evident 
romance."  Porter  in  Hastings  II.  823b.  Marshall  calls  and 
proves  Bel  and  the  Dragon  "two  legends,"  and  shows  that  the 
story  of  Susanna  "cannot  be  regarded  as  historical."  Hastings 
I.  267a,  IV.  631b. 

194.  Gregory  the  Great  wavered.    Gigot  Introduction  67.     In 
787  Hadrian  I  accepted  the  canons  of  the  Second  Council  of 
Nicea,    and    thereby    tacitly    indorsed     several    contradictory 
opinions  as  to  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  recorded  in  691-692  at 
Constantinople,  in  Trullo.     Gigot  65,  109. 

195.  Gigot  Introduction  39,  52. 

196.  Ryle  Canon  141,  152.     Catholic  notes  on  Lk  11  51  "From 
the  blood  of  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias"  refer  to  Gen  4  8 
and  II  Paralipomenon  (II  Chron)  24  22.     Now  in  the  Hebrew 
Bibles,  these  books  are  respectively  the  first  and  the  last,  so  that 
the  effect  is  as  if  we  were  to  say  "from  Genesis  to  Malachi,"  or  for 
the  whole  Bible,  "from  Genesis  to  Revelation."     It  appears  a 
fair  inference  that  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  known  to  our  Lord 
in  the  very  order  in  which  they  are  now  printed. 

197.  Gigot  Introduction  326  quotes  the  Catholic  Dictionary, 
which  estimates  them  less  favorably  as  "  few,"  not  as  "  a  few." 

198.  Gigot  Introduction  319,  320. 

199.  Gigot  quotes,  Introduction  358-359,  Protestant  estimates  to 
the  contrary,  but  the  contemporary  evidence  is  strong.     Besides 
that  of  Buschius  cited  in  the  text,  his  amanuensis,  George  Joye, 
assures  us  he  had  high  learning  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin ;  and 
Sir  Thomas  More  owned  he  was  "full  prettily  learned."    This  is 
plainly  evident  hi  his  preface  to  Matthew,  his  epistle  to  the 
reader  in  1534,  and  in  several  notes. 

200.  Comely  writes  in  Latin  (Introd.  Compend.  107)  of  which 
the  following  is  the  Essayist's  translation:   "Into  some  dog- 
matic or  moral  texts  he  inserted  his  own  interpretation  (for  in- 
stance Ex  23  13  for  the  Hebrew  text  'Make  no  mention  of  the 
name  of  other  gods,'  he  put  'By  the  name  of  strange  gods  you 
shall  not  swear'),  especially  in  Messianic  prophecies;  for  he  so 


228  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

rendered  some  that  they  could  be  drawn  into  a  Messianic  sense 
(for  instance  Isa  2  22  'for  he  is  reputed  high';  16  1  'send  forth,  O 
Lord,  the  lamb,  the  ruler  of  the  earth/  etc.),  although  he  anno- 
tates in  a  commentary  that  the  other  rendering  which  excludes 
a  Messianic  bearing  is  commoner;  other  texts,  which  are  Messianic 
in  a  certain  broad  sense,  he  determines  to  a  special  fact  (for  in- 
stance Isa  11  10  'his  sepulchre  shall  be  glorious');  others  which 
were  spoken  about  the  Messiah's  reign,  he  refers  to  the  Messiah's 
person  (for  instance  Isa  45  8  'let  the  clouds  rain  the  just:  let  the 
earth  be  opened,  and  bud  forth  a  savior' ;  55  5  'my  fust  one  is  near 
at  hand,  my  savior  is  gone  forth,'  where  the  abstract  nouns 
justice,  salvation  ought  to  be  placed);  others  which  are  spoken 
briefly,  he  fills  out  in  his  own  way  (Dan  9  26,  Hebrew  'it  shall  not 
be  to  him'  for  which  St.  Jerome:  'the  people  that  shall  deny  him 
shall  not  be  his,'  or,  as  he  has  it  in  his  commentary,  'the  empire 
that  they  were  thinking  they  would  retain  shall  not  be  his';  but 
St.  Augustine  indicates  another  supplement:  'he  shall  not  be  of 
that  state' ',  and  other  people  indicate  other  renderings)." 

Gigot  speaks  rather  severely  of  some  of  these  translations  of 
Jerome,  Introduction  322-325,  and  adds  further  illustrations.  In 
Gen  49  10,  the  Vulgate  guides  the  Douay  to  translate:  "The  scep- 
tre shall  not  be  taken  away  from  Juda,  nor  a  ruler  from  his  thigh, 
till  he  come  that  is  to  be  sent,  and  he  shall  be  the  expectation  of 
the  nations."  Gigot  says  that  some  of  this  rendering  was 
already  traditional,  so  that  Jerome  only  acquiesced  in  it,  but 
ascribes  to  him  the  clause  in  italics,  "which  could  be  obtained 
only  by  an  arbitrary  reading  of  the  Hebrew  text."  Again, 
Jerome's  Latin  of  Job  19  26-27  results  in  "I  know  that  my  Re- 
deemer liveth,  and  in  the  last  day  I  shall  rise  out  of  the  earth.  And 
/  shall  be  clothed  again  with  my  skin,  arid  in  my  flesh  I  shall  see 
my  God.  Whom  I  myself  shall  see,  and  my  eyes  shall  behold,  and 
not  another;  this  my  hope  is  laid  up  in  my  bosom."  Criticising 
Jerome,  "many  Catholic  scholars  think  that  version  is  neither 
literal  nor  accurate,"  objecting  to  the  clauses  in  italics.  Father 
Corluy,  the  Jesuit,  offers  a  new  Latin  translation  meaning  "I 
know  that  my  Defender  is  living,  and  He  at  last  will  appear  on 
the  dust.  And  afterwards  these  (members  of  my  body)  will  be 


APPENDIX  229 

clothed  with  my  skin,  and  out  of  my  flesh  I  shall  behold  God; 
whom  I  shall  behold  for  myself,  and  my  eyes  shall  see,  and  not 
another;  my  kidneys  have  failed  in  my  bosom."  Yet  no  edition 
known  to  the  writer  has  ventured  to  depart  from  the  Latin  of 
Jerome,  in  face  of  the  decision  of  Trent ;  and  all  the  editions  based 
on  the  Challoner  text  reproduce  all  these  faults,  although  they  do 
vary  among  themselves  in  other  and  petty  details. 

The  translation  of  Hab  3  has  some  marvelous  touches,  some 
of  which  are  indorsed  in  notes;  ver  5  runs:  "Death  shall  go  be- 
fore his  face.  And  the  Devil  shall  go  forth  before  his  feet;"  ver 
13:  "Thou  wentest  forth  for  the  salvation  of  thy  people:  for  sal- 
vation with  thy  Christ;"  ver  18:  "But  I  will  rejoice  in  the  Lord: 
and  I  will  joy  in  my  God  Jesus." 

Now  some  of  these  may  be  simple  blunders,  but  not  all;  and 
to  say  that  these  are  "serious  defects"  is  less  than  the  truth. 
They  betoken  a  willingness  to  tamper  with  the  text. 

201.  Gell,   quoted  by  Gigot   Introduction  367.     The  matter 
does  not  fall  strictly  within  the  scope  of  this  essay,  but  still  the 
writer  would  have  tested  the  assertion,  could  he  have  found 
references  to  any  specific  passage.     Gigot  indorses  the  accusa- 
tion, and  the  five  cases  he  quotes  from  Kenrick  are  set  forth  in 
the  next  note. 

202.  Matt  19  11  now  runs  in  the  Protestant  version  of  1900: 
"But  he  said  unto  them,  Not  all  men  can  receive  this  saying,  but 
they  to  whom  it  is  given."     Kenrick  objected  to  the  word  "can," 
saying  that  it  was  stronger  than  the  text.     A  modern  Catholic 
version  renders:  "All  men  take  not  this  word."     A  Protestant 
will  adopt  the  principle  of  Pope  Clement  and  appeal  to  the  Greek, 
finding  the  same  Greek  word  (rendered  by  the  same  Latin)  at 
Mk  22,    where  a  Catholic  version  renders:  "there  was  no  room." 
The  same  Greek  word  at  Jno  21  2S  was  rendered    by  Jerome 
"capere  posse"  and  in  a  Catholic  version  "would  not  be  able  to 
contain."     Therefore  it  is  clear  that  the  text  may  mean  what  the 
Protestant  version  says  it  does,  Catholics  being  witnesses.     To 
prove  that  it  may  mean  this,  does  not  prove  that  it  must  mean 
this,  but  refutes  the  charge  of  being  a  dishonest  rendering.     It  is 
possible  for  honest  difference  of  opinion  to  exist. 


230  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

I  Cor  79  has  been  revised,  and  Catholics  would  probably  be 
satisfied  with  the  result.  When  criticising  this  mote,  they  had  a 
beam  of  their  own  while  their  final  words  read:  "It  is  better  to 
marry  than  to  be  burnt"!  But  they  must  follow  the  Vulgate. 

I  Cor  9  5  still  stands:  "Have  we  no  right  to  lead  about  a  wife?" 
A  Catholic  note  asserts  that  it  is  certain  Paul  had  no  wife,  and 
refers  to  7  7,  8.  This  indeed  says  he  was  then  without  a  wife,  but 
suggests  two  alternatives,  unmarried  or  widowed.  The  second  of 
these,  the  Catholic  annotator  ignores.  There  are  other  reasons 
for  thinking  Paul  was  a  widower,  drawn  from  Acts  26  10.  Without 
assuming  this,  the  possibility  lies  open,  and  we  are  thrown  back  on 
the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word.  In  ch.  vii  it  occurs  repeatedly, 
and  in  the  official  Vulgate  it  is  rendered  by  two  different  Latin 
words,  one  vague  and  equivalent  to  'Woman'  ("whether  mar- 
ried or  not"  says  Smith  Latin  Dictionary},  the  other  precise  and 
equivalent  to  'Wife.'  A  modern  Catholic  version  does  not  object 
to  render  it  into  English  as  'Wife'  a  dozen  times  in  that  chapter. 
Therefore  the  Protestant  version  is  allowable,  Catholics  being 
witnesses.  But  when  the  Catholic  Bible  says  that  "erroneous 
translators  have  corrupted  the  text,"  the  statement  goes  beyond 
the  truth,  and  is  couched  in  unseemly  language.  And  indeed 
when  the  facts  are  scanned  closely,  this  charge  has  a  boomerang 
quality  about  it.  The  English  translators  are  perfectly  within 
their  rights,  if  they  stand  by  a  possible  rendering  which  accords 
with  their  dogmatic  views;  but  the  Latin  translators  and  editors 
have  dealt  differently  with  this  text.  Tertullian  dropped  the 
word  '  Sister';  Ambrosiaster  does  the  same,  if  his  editors  are  to  be 
trusted;  Sedulius  declares  on  the  other  hand  that  the  Greek 
reads  '  Sisters,'  not  '  Women,'  which  assertion  is  against  a  mass 
of  evidence;  Helvidius  and  Cassiodorus  restore  the  balance  by 
the  brave  assertion  that  the  rendering  is  unmistakably  'Wives'; 
Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Hilary,  with  the  Armenian  version, 
strongly  influenced  by  the  Latin,  have  other  variations;  and  it 
is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion  of  Alford,  that  "  the  sacred 
text  was  tampered  with  by  the  parties  in  the  controversy  on 
celibacy."  Moreover  the  standard  text  of  the  Vulgate  here  is 
not  only  variant  from  the  Greek  in  its  order,  but  is  in  opposition 


APPENDIX  231 

to  the  best  surviving  manuscript  copies  of  Jerome's  version.  It 
would  be  wise  for  Catholic  controversialists  not  to  mention  this  case. 

I  Cor  11  27.  This  text  has  been  corrected  as  Catholics  desire. 
The  criticism  was  just,  but  unimportant  in  view  of  ver  26. 

Heb  10  38.  Following  the  Genevan  Version,  the  Royal  read: 
"Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith:  but  if  any  man  draw  back,  my 
soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him."  Kenrick  charged  that  the 
"interpolation  in  italics  was  designed  to  prevent  the  obvious 
inference,  that  the  just  man  might  fall  from  grace."  The  charge 
of  motive  is  not  supported  by  references,  nor  borne  out  by  any 
facts  within  the  cognizance  of  the  present  writer.  In  any  case, 
the  revisions  of  1865,  1881,  1900  remove  all  occasion  for  it. 

203.  Gen  11  31  teUs  how  Abram  came  "out  of  Ur  of  the  Chal- 
dees";  but  II  Esd  9  7  translates  the  proper  name  "Ur"  and  gives 
the  miraculous  rendering,  "out  of  the  fire  of  the  Chaldees"! 

Gen  126  speaks  of  the  "noble  vale."  A  better  rendering  of  the 
same  phrase  is  in  Deut  11  30,  "the  valley  that  reacheth  and  en- 
tereth  far."  In  each  case  the  Hebrew  seems  really  to  mean  "the 
oak  of  Moreh." 

Gen  31  32  has  added  a  few  words,  in  the  style  now  indicated  by 
italics,  and  the  same  thing  has  been  done  at  ver  47,  with  the  result 
that  the  text  is  more  intelligible  than  the  Protestant.  But  there 
is  in  the  Catholic  version  no  indication  that  the  Hebrew  and  Ara- 
maic have  been  supplemented  in  Latin. 

On  the  other  hand,  Gen  35  13  has  been  needlessly  cut  down  to 
"And  he  departed  from  him." 

Gen  38  5  is  a  case  where  Jerome  was  misled  by  his  teachers, 
and  wittingly  or  unwittingly  he  has  given  a  paraphrase,  not  a 
translation:  "After  whose  birth,  she  ceased  to  bear  any  more." 

Gen  39  5  cuts  out  the  information  given  once  already  at  ver  4. 

Gen  39  19  is  a  short  paraphrase. 

Gen  40  5  is  another  case  of  ingenious  compression,  which  yet  is 
beyond  our  ideas  of  a  translator's  duty;  nor  is  it  to  be  compen- 
sated by  the  free  treatment  of  40  20-23,  which  paraphrases,  am- 
plifies, and  condenses. 

Gen  41  28  again  looks  like  mere  weariness,  leading  to  the  prun- 
ing of  a  pleonastic  style  in  the  original. 


232  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Gen  49  22  has  missed  a  beautiful  figure  of  a  spreading  vine,  and 
gives  the  rendering:  "Joseph  is  a  growing  son,  a  growing  son  and 
comely  to  behold:  the  daughters  run  to  and  fro  upon  the  wall." 

Worse  liberties  than  these  were  taken,  as  at  Ex  40  12-15  and 
Jdg  14  15.  And  in  all  these  cases  an  English  translator  is  for- 
bidden to  go  behind  the  standard  text  of  Jerome;  nor  does  any 
annotation  occur  in  the  copies  available  to  the  writer. 

204.  To  gather  twelve  such  cases  is  not  very  easy,  but  for  vari- 
ous reasons  there  may  be  mentioned  Ps  24  6;  Matt  11  19;  Lk  5  5, 
24  26;  Acts  4  13;  Rom  5  7;  II  Cor  10  1,  2;  I  Tim  3  2,  5  4,  6  7;  Phlm 
12;  Rev  15  6. 

205.  On  this  subject  see  Comely  Introd.  Compend.  121-123,  or 
Hammond    Outlines  of  Textual   Criticism  applied  to  the  New 
Testament,  or  Marvin  R.  Vincent  History  of  the  Textual  Criti- 
cism of  the  New  Testament. 

206.  See  Matt  6  13,  19  17;  Lk  10  42,  11  2-4,  22  43-44,  23  34;  Jno 
1  18,  3  13,  7  8;  Acts  11  20;  I  Cor  13  3;  Rev  12  18,  13  1. 

207.  For  instance,  Acts  16  7;  I  Jno  2  23. 

208.  See  Mk  6  20;  Lk  2  14,  6  l;  Rom  5  l. 

209.  Matt   1    16;  Mk  5   36;  Acts  13   18;  Phil  2  l;  Col  2  2; 
Jude  5. 

210.  Among  these  are  Matt  27  35;  Mk  7  19;  Jno  5  3,  4,  7  53-8  11, 
10  16;  Acts  8  37, 15  34;  I  Cor  11  24, 15  51;  I  Th  2  7;  Jas  4  4;  I  Pet 
1  2,  3  15;  I  Jno  5  7,  8,  18.     Gigot  briefly  alludes  to  some  of  these. 
Introduction  236-245. 

211.  Scrivener-Miller  Introduction  II.  334. 

212.  For  a  statement  of  the  evidence,  consult  Hammond,  or 
Home  Introduction,  or  Scrivener-Miller,  or  Gloag  Dissertation, 
or  Westcott's  additional  Note,  or  Graf  ton's  Digest  in  Alford,  or 
Wiseman  Two  Letters  on  I  John  V.  7. 

213.  Gigot  Introduction  349;  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  252,  271a. 

214.  Wiseman  Essays  I.  75;  Washington  Moon  The  Revisers' 
English. 

215.  Thus  the  Catholic  version  at  ver  63,  "And  they  all  won- 
dered" is  decidedly  better  than  "And  they  marvelled  all."     On 
the  other  hand  there  are  clumsy  renderings  at  vs  6,  17,  23,  35,  37,  54, 
72,  such  as,  "Because  no  word  shall  be  impossible  with  God." 


APPENDIX  233 

216.  Newman  Tracts  361 ;  Carleton  Rheims  18. 

217.  Rule  VI.  is  quoted  by  Lupton  in  Hastings  V.  253b. 

218.  Of  the  modern  Catholic  notes  dealing  with  debatable 
questions,  two  specimens  may  suffice.     At  Matt  16  23  we  read 
that  Jesus  "turning  said  to  Peter:  Go  behind  me,  satan,  thou  art 
a  scandal  unto  me."    A  Catholic  note  does  not  refer  to  4  10,  and 
show  that  this  is  the  rebuke  to  the  devil,  intensified.     It  advocates 
an  explanation  that  "  the  Lord  would  have  Peter  to  follow  him  in 
his  suffering,  and  not  to  oppose  the  divine  will  by  contradiction; 
for  the  word  satan  means  in  Hebrew  an  adversary  or  one  that 
opposes."     Despite  the  holy  Fathers,  this  is  not  the  probable 
meaning.     Kenrick  speaks  much  to  the  same  effect,  but  quotes 
at  length  Jerome  and  Bloomfield.     At  Eph  4  11-13  is  a  note 
"Gave  some  apostles — Until  we  all  meet,  etc.     Here  it  is  plainly 
expressed  that  Christ  has  left  in  his  Church  a  perpetual  succession 
of  orthodox  pastors  and  teachers,  to  preserve  the  faithful  in 
unity  and  truth."     The  note  is  courteous  enough;  but  it  em- 
phasizes what  is  a  possible  deduction  from  a  barely  possible  mean- 
ing, and  leaves  untouched  the  main  drift  of  the  passage. 

219.  The  candor  of  this  avowal  deserves  all  praise;  but  the 
scholarship  is  puzzling.     A  critical  edition  of  the  Vulgate  by  Stier 
and  Theile  gives  not  '  ipsum'  but  'ipse'  as  the  various  reading  of 
the  manuscripts;  and  this  alone  would  yield  the  sense  or  be  har- 
monious with  the  laws  of  syntax.     Yet  'ipsum'  is  not  a  mere 
Irish  misprint,  for  a  Scotch  edition  a  century  older  gives  sub- 
stantially the  same  information.     Is  it  possible  that  a  flagrant 
mistake  of  grammar  and  of  fact  has  been  carelessly  perpetuated 
in  several  editions;  or  is  it  that  the  accusative  case,  really  found 
in  a  sentence  of  some  Father  using  it  correctly,  has  been  trans- 
ferred here  exactly  without  suiting  it  to  the  context?     Whatever 
the  explanation,  some  is  needed. 

220.  Darlow  Catalogue  219. 

221.  Decrees  of  Trent,  and  Rules  of  Pope  Pius  IV.     These  are 
set  forth  by  Buckley  Canons  and  Decrees.      But  on  the  other 
hand,  "the  Papal  rescript  of  December,  1898,  practically  abol- 
ished the  old  rule  which  prohibited  laymen  from  reading  the 
Word  of  God  in  the  vulgar  tongue  without  first  obtaining  the 


234  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

permission  of  their  confessor."  Ninety-ninth  Report  of  the  Brit- 
ish and  Foreign  Bible  Society  64. 

222.  The  Roman  authorities  have  been  singularly  variable  in 
their  attitude  toward  vernacular  versions.  There  is  some  rea- 
son to  think  that  in  the  second  century  the  Greek  Gospels  were 
published  at  Rome  with  the  vernacular  Latin  opposite,  and  that 
this  important  diglot  was  the  parent  or  pattern  of  many  other 
vernacular  versions.  See  Kenyon  Handbook  of  the  Textual  Criti- 
cism of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Cambridge  Texts  and  Stud- 
ies II.  It  is  certain  that  a  Bishop  of  Rome  ordered  Jerome 
to  revise  the  Latin  versions  of  the  Psalms  and  Gospels.  In  the 
Middle  Ages  another  Pope  after  hesitation  authorized  a  Slavonic 
version,  still  used  in  the  Russian  Empire,  on  grounds  that  apply 
to  all  vernacular  versions.  The  tide  turned  in  the  days  of  Hil- 
debrand,  whose  predecessor  had  permitted  the  vernacular  in 
public  worship.  He  now  objected,  saying,  "God  has  ordained 
that  in  some  places  Holy  Scripture  should  remain  unknown,  be- 
cause if  all  could  easily  understand  it,  it  might  through  being 
despised  or  misinterpreted,  lead  the  people  into  error."  A  cen- 
tury later  Alexander  III  refused  approval  to  Waldo's  Provencal 
Version. 

For  the  appearance  of  the  numerous  versions  put  to  the  press 
in  its  early  days,  the  Papal  Court  was  not  directly  responsible, 
neither  did  it  hinder  them,  whatever  local  clergy  might  do.  But 
with  the  revolt  of  many  local  churches  from  the  rule  of  Rome, 
the  whole  subject  entered  on  a  new  phase.  After  the  Council  of 
Trent,  Pius  IV  approved  of  ten  Rules,  of  which  the  fourth  pro- 
vides that  the  use  of  even  Catholic  versions  depends  on  leave 
from  bishop  or  inquisitor,  together  with  priest  or  confessor,  and 
in  the  case  of  regular  monks  on  further  leave  from  the  head  of  the 
order.  This  is  a  rule  interesting  to  those  who  are  told  that  the 
Catholic  Church  has  never  prohibited  any  of  her  members  read- 
ing the  Scriptures. 

A  few  facts  as  to  the  circulation  of  the  Scriptures  by  Catholics 
will  better  elucidate  the  situation.  In  the  Highlands  of  Scotland, 
many  Celts  were  and  are  Catholics,  yet,  till  the  days  of  James  VII, 
they  had  no  version  to  which  they  could  turn,  and  this  was  first 


APPENDIX  235 

provided  by  Protestants.  Ireland  has  been  a  Catholic  strong- 
hold, yet  the  Irish  version  was  made  by  Protestants;  and  despite 
the  efforts  of  the  Catholic  clergy  to  encourage  the  use  of  the  lan- 
guage, it  does  not  seem  that  they  have  provided  an  authentic 
Catholic  version.  Nor  were  they  more  earnest  in  urging  the 
supply  of  the  Douay.  In  the  south  of  Ireland  about  1800,  one 
Protestant  family  in  three  was  provided,  but  only  one  Catholic 
in  five  hundred.  Canton  History  I.  22.  The  great  Catholic 
powers  that  colonized  the  New  World  were  Spain  and  France. 
They  neither  provided  adequately  for  their  own  settlers,  nor  at  all 
for  the  natives.  When  the  government  of  New  Orleans  was  taken 
over  in  1803,  "it  was  not  till  after  a  long  search  for  a  Bible  to 
administer  the  oath  of  office  that  a  Latin  Vulgate  was  at  last  pro- 
cured from  a  priest."  Canton  I.  245.  In  Canada  then  "the 
Bible  was  in  general  a  book  at  once  unknown  and  forbidden" 
(Canton  II.  57),  while  in  Quebec  itself,  as  late  as  1826,  many 
people  had  never  heard  of  the  New  Testament.  Canton  II.  61. 
In  that  same  year  at  the  anniversary  of  the  American  Bible  Society 
attention  was  directed  to  South  America,  where  fifteen  millions 
of  people,  professedly  Christian,  and  under  Christian  influence  for 
about  three  centuries,  were  almost  entirely  without  the  Bible.  At 
Cordova,  the  ancient  seat  of  the  Jesuits,  books  of  all  kinds  were 
prohibited  by  the  Inquisition,  except  missals  and  breviaries.  Can- 
ton II.  82.  If  a  few  years  later,  a  Bishop  of  Aragon  in  the  Old 
World  prepared  and  published  a  Spanish  version,  it  was  1831  be- 
fore the  first  Bible  was  printed  in  Spanish  America,  and  the  ver- 
sions published  by  the  clergy  ranged  from  twenty-five  to  a  hun- 
dred and  thirty-two  dollars  in  cost.  Canton  II.  347.  Nor  is  this 
apathy  a  matter  of  the  past,  long  since  redeemed  by  zeal  in  the 
cause.  A  traveler  across  Brazil  hi  1902,  who  enquired  care- 
fully into  the  subject,  found  in  a  thousand  miles  bishops  and 
priests  in  plenty,  but  not  a  single  copy  of  the  Scriptures  in  any 
lay  home;  nor  had  most  of  the  residents  ever  heard  of  the  Bible, 
though  they  were  able,  willing,  and  anxious  to  buy  a  copy  when 
it  was  shown  to  them.  Report  328. 

Whether  then  appeal  be  made  to  the  colonies  of  Catholic  coun- 
tries, or  to  the  mother  lands,  it  is  incorrect  that  "in  every  family 


236  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

whose  means  will  permit  the  buying  of  a  copy,  there  you  will 
find  the  Authentic  Version  of  God's  words  as  authorized  by  the 
Church."  But  it  must  be  granted  that  the  Church  is  sometimes 
very  anxious  to  shield  her  children  from  unauthentic  versions; 
for  during  1902  public  bonfires  of  them  were  made  in  Austria,  Fiji, 
Pernambuco,  and  Peru,  and  the  Archbishop  of  Sucre  in  Bolivia 
"actually  suggested  that  capital  punishment  should  be  meted  out" 
to  a  man  circulating  them.  Report  9,  35,  38,  39,  54-57,  323, 
etc.  And  on  February  22,  1903,  another  public  burning  of 
Bibles  was  made  in  Pernambuco,  and  another  was  planned  but 
forbidden  by  the  state  officers,  so  that  the  bonfire  was  private,  in 
the  back  of  the  church.  Letter  of  W.  H.  Cannada  published  in  the 
Baptist  Argus  of  November  5,  1903,  at  Louisville. 

If  appeal  be  made  to  the  efforts  of  Catholics  in  countries 
mainly  Protestant  to  counteract  the  mischief  of  unauthentic 
copies,  it  should  be  remembered  that  in  1813  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bible  Society  founded  in  England  by  a  bishop  and  others  was 
bitterly  opposed  by  Catholics,  and  soon  came  to  an  end ;  and  that 
the  Catholic  Bible  Society  at  Regensburg,  circulating  only  ver- 
sions made  by  Catholics,  was  suppressed  by  Papal  Bull  in  1817. 

It  is  best  to  look  again  to  headquarters  and  note  the  vacilla- 
tions of  the  Popes  themselves  in  modern  times.  A  great  deal  is 
made  of  the  brief  of  Pius  VI,  the  anti-Jesuit  Pope,  in  1778  to 
Archbishop  Martini.  This  declares  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
"are  the  most  abundant  sources,  which  ought  to  be  left  open  to 
every  one,  to  draw  from  them  purity  of  morals  and  of  doctrine" 
and  it  acquiesces  in  his  claim  that  he  had  seasonably  effected  this 
"by  publishing  the  Sacred  Writings  in  the  language  of  your 
country,  suitable  to  every  one's  capacity."  But  as  soon  as  the 
revolutionary  upheavals  were  over,  and  the  reaction  had  set  in, 
Pius  VII  sent  a  brief  on  September  3,  1816,  to  Stanislaus,  Metro- 
politan of  Russia,  wherein  he  declared  that  "if  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures were  allowed  in  the  vulgar  tongue  everywhere  without  dis- 
crimination, more  detriment  than  benefit  would  arise."  As  this 
was  the  Pope  who  on  April  20,  1820,  sent  a  rescript  to  the  Vicars 
Apostolic  of  Great  Britain  commending  the  reading  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  the  British  ought  to  feel  highly  honored  by  his 


APPENDIX  237 

Holiness 's    discrimination    in    their    favor.     Darlow    Catalogue 
341. 

His  successor,  Leo  XII,  in  an  encyclical  of  May  3,  1824,  within 
nine  months  of  his  accession,  indorsed  the  traditional  attitude: 
"If  the  Scriptures  be  everywhere  indiscriminately  published, 
more  evil  than  advantage  will  arise."  Though  Pius  VIII  reigned 
only  one  year,  yet  he  found  time  on  May  29,  1829,  to  condemn 
Bible  Societies.  Again  on  May  8,  1844,  Gregory  XVI  objected 
to  their  "publishing  the  books  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  every 
vernacular  tongue  .  .  so  as  to  induce  every  one  to  read  them 
without  the  aid  of  an  interpreter  or  guide."  Canton  II.  159. 
Pius  IX  followed  in  the  same  strain,  and  at  last  on  December  8, 
1864,  gathered  up  several  denunciations  into  his  famous  Syllabus 
of  Errors,  when  he  classed  Bible  Societies  with  Socialism,  Com- 
munism, Secret  Societies,  and  Clerico-liberal  Societies,  recalling 
how  "pests  of  this  description  are  frequently  rebuked  in  the 
severest  terms."  Then  in  1870  the  Council  of  the  Vatican  rati- 
fied generally  the  decrees  of  Trent  on  Revelation,  and  renewed  a 
curse  on  all  who  "shall  not  receive  as  holy  and  canonical  all  the 
books  of  Holy  Scripture  with  all  their  parts,  as  set  forth  by  the 
holy  Tridentine  Synod  [including  the  '  Apocrypha '],  or  shall  deny 
that  they  were  divinely  inspired."  Fortunately  the  same  Coun- 
cil declared  that  under  certain  circumstances  the  Pope  is  in- 
fallible, and  so  the  proceedings  of  Leo  XIII  may  reassure  us  to 
some  extent.  On  November  18,  1893,  by  encyclical  he  com- 
mended to  his  clergy  the  more  careful  study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. Report  64.  In  1897  he  published  an  Apostolic  Con- 
stitution, where  in  Ch.  iii,  §  7,  it  is  stated  anew,  "All  versions 
of  the  vernacular,  even  by  Catholics,  are  altogether  prohibited, 
unless  approved  by  the  Holy  See,  or  published  under  the  vigilant 
care  of  the  Bishops,  with  annotations  taken  from  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church  and  learned  Catholic  writers."  But  having  thus 
aligned  himself  with  his  predecessors,  he  made  rapid  advances. 
His  rescript  next  year  threw  open  such  approved  versions  without 
further  trouble.  Presently  he  allowed  a  "Pious  Society  of  St. 
Jerome  for  the  Dissemination  of  the  Holy  Gospels"  to  issue  from 
the  Vatican  Press  itself  hundreds  of  thousands  of  a  four-cent 


238  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Italian  edition  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  a  one-cent  Matthew, 
pushed  throughout  Italy  by  the  younger  priests.  Report  63. 
Then  on  October  30,  1902,  he  issued  another  Apostolic  Letter  in 
continuation  of  his  1893  encyclical,  appointing  a  Commission  to 
sit  in  Rome  for  promoting  the  study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in 
certain  specified  ways,  and  appropriating  part  of  the  Vatican 
Library  for  the  purpose. 

It  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped  that  further  steps  will  be  taken  along 
this  road,  but  remembering  the  fate  of  Lasserre's  French  Gospels, 
and  that  another  Pope  now  wears  the  Fisherman's  ring,  it  is  early 
to  feel  sure  that  this  state  of  affairs  is  assured.  Meantime  the 
translation  of  the  Psalms  is  being  proceeded  with  for  the  Society, 
and  a  new  French  Bible  revised  by  the  Jesuits  has  been  issued 
in  popular  form  avowedly  for  seminarists,  priests,  and  laymen. 

If  the  proceedings  of  Leo  XIII  seemed  in  some  measure  to 
relax  the  stringent  rules,  yet  the  tightening  of  the  bond  is  again 
apparent  in  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Cassetta  on  January  21,  1907, 
from  Pius  X,  in  which  he  declares:  "It  will  also  be  advisable 
that  the  Society  of  St.  Jerome  hold  as  a  sufficient  field  of  labor 
for  itself  its  effort  to  publish  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles."  The  work  of  translation  is  stopped. 

223.  The  villagers  on  the  frontiers  of  Bulgaria,  Servia,  and 
Turkey  still  speak  a  dialect  of  Latin  which  recent  travelers  note 
with  surprise  is  plain  enough  for  students  of  the  classics  to  recog- 
nize. 


SECOND   ESSAY 

1.  Even  the  highest  view  of  the  authority  of  councils  must 
recognize  the  fact  that  their  conclusions  as  to  the  Scripture  canon 
have  always  been  based  primarily  on  what  they  judged  to  be  the 
experience  spiritual  men  had  had  of  a  book's  worth  in  synagogue 
or  church.     This  was  true  of  the  violent  Jewish  Assembly  of 
Jamnia  in  90  A.D.,  which  declared  in  favor  of  the  Hebrew  canon. 
It  was  true  of  the  early  Christian  councils,  like  the  local  synods  of 
Laodicea  and  Carthage,  and  of  the  Council  of  Trent  itself,  which 
declared  for  the  fuller  text,  and  whose  decision  was,  of  course, 
authoritative  for  Catholics.     The  name  of  an  author,  the  appro- 
priateness of  a  writing  for  use  in  public  worship,  and  other  con- 
siderations, had  weight  in  accepting  or  rejecting  a  book  as  biblical; 
but  the  fundamental  factor  was  the  spiritual  worth  of  a  book,  as 
tested  in  the  experience  of  God's  people. 

2.  The  other  three  of  the  oldest  five  manuscripts  are  known  as 
the  Alexandrian  MS.,  the  Codex  of  Ephraim,  and  the  Codex  of 
Beza.     Even  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  MSS.  are  manuscript  copies 
in  the  original  only  in  the  New  Testament;  for,  in  both,  the  Old 
Testament  is  the  Septuagint  Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew. 

The  five  are,  for  convenience,  known  as  tf  (Aleph,  the  Hebrew 
A),  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  respectively.  Their  symbols,  names,  deriva- 
tion, probable  date,  chief  contents,  and  present  home,  may  be 
grouped  as  shown  in  table  on  the  following  page. 

3.  There  is  a  copy  of  the  Prophets  dated  916  A.D.  and  a  recently 
acquired  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  is  "not  later  than  the  ninth  cen- 
tury."   This  is  in  the  British  Museum.     See  Kenyon  Our  Bible 
and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts  38  ff. 

4.  On  the  comparative  worth  of  manuscript  copies  and  ver- 
sions, compare  Jerome's  Works,  Vallarsi's  Ed.,  IX,  Preface  to 
the  Chronicles  from  the  Hebrew,  col.  1405.      Also  Burkitt  in 
Cheyne  IV,  col.  4981. 

5.  Of  the  early  Christian  writers,  commonly  called  the  "  church 

239 


240 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


0 


0.4        S° 

Ni    5° 

T**5  -•»  BO 


M 

C 


18441nCon- 
M*.  Sinai. 


Found 
vent 


Ufl    £2.s 


APPENDIX  241 

Fathers,"  and  the  character  of  their  testimony,  Geddes,  a 
Scotch  Roman  Catholic  priest  and  scholar,  says:  "The  Christian 
writers  of  the  first  few  centuries  were  men  of  great  probity,  but 
generally  of  little  learning  and  less  taste.  They  transmitted  to 
posterity  the  deposition  [tradition  of  essential  truth]  which  they 
had  received  from  the  Apostles  and  their  immediate  successors, 
with  honesty,  earnestness,  and  simplicity;  and  recommended  the 
doctrines  they  taught  more  by  the  sanctity  of  their  lives  than  by 
the  depth  of  their  erudition.  They  form  so  many  invaluable  links 
in  the  golden  chain  of  universal  and  apostolic  tradition ;  but  they 
afford  very  little  help  towards  clearing  up  the  dark  passages  of 
Scripture."  Prospectus  of  a  New  Translation  of  the  Holy  Bible 
114. 

6.  In  this  connection,  Gigot,  Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture 
in  St.  Mary's  Seminary,  Baltimore,  Md.,  says:  "Though  watched 
over  in  a  special  manner  by  Divine  Providence  in  the  course  of 
ages,  the  inspired  books  of  the  canon  have  been  transcribed  dur- 
ing many  centuries  by  all  manner  of  copyists  whose  ignorance 
and  carelessness  they  still  bear  witness  to."     General  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  163. 

7.  Very  recent  discoveries  and  investigations  tend  to  confirm 
Hort's  groupings  of  the  biblical  text,  in  the  main,  as  against  such 
advocates  of  the  "  Received  Text"  of  the  Authorized  Version  as 
the  late  Dean  Burgon.     See  his  books,  The  Traditional  Text  and 
The  Causes  of  Corruption.     At  the  same  time,  they  increase 
respect  for  the  "  Western  Text  "  as  a  witness  to  the  truth  before  the 
early  and  numerous  interpolations  which  have  so  largely  distin- 
guished it  came  into  it.     A  very  ancient  Syriac  MS.,  discovered 
in  1892,  is  Western,  but  has  none  of  the  common  additions,  as 
found,  for  instance,  in  the  Latin  Vulgate.     The  readings  of  such  a 
manuscript,  when  corroborated  by  the  Neutral  group,  are  almost 
certainly  true  readings.     Compare  Murray  in  Hastings  V.  208- 
236,  especially  paragraph  83;  Burkitt  in  Cheyne  IV,  col.  4990; 
Nestle  in  Hastings  IV.  737-739.     Also,  Harris  Four  Lectures 
on  the  Western  Text  and  The  Oxford  Debate  on  Textual  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament. 

8.  That  the  combinations  of  the  Antiochian  group  are  later 


242  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

than  either  of  the  two  parts  that  enter  into  it,  is  regarded  by  most 
scholars  as  extremely  probable,  (1)  because  a  more  natural  and 
worthy  motive  would  lead  a  copyist  to  include  both  words  when 
he  found  one  in  one  of  his  copies,  another  in  another,  while  it 
would  be  unnatural  and  unworthy  for  a  copyist  to  find  two  words 
in  his  exemplar  and  copy  only  one;  (2)  because  it  is  known  that 
such  combinations  were  actually  practiced;  and  (3)  because,  in 
the  writings  of  the  church  Fathers,  before  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  are  found  quotations  of  Scripture  that  follow  the  readings 
in  the  Neutral,  Western,  and  Alexandrian  groups,  but  none  that 
have  the  distinctive  Antiochian  combinations. 

9.  See  Diagram  2.     This  varies  slightly  from  Hort's  theory, 
in  recognition  of  later  modifications.     The  relative  distance  in 
the  diagram  from  the  ideal  (broken)  line  in  the  center,  represent- 
ing the  orginal  text  now  lost,  indicates  approximately  the  relative 
accuracy  with  which  the  several  groups  reproduce  the  original 
New  Testament  writings.     Of  course,  there  was  in  fact  more  or 
less  intermixture  between  groups.     Of  course,   also,  only  the 
chief  epochs  in  manuscript-making  are  represented  in  the  dia- 
gram.    Of  the  Vulgate  manuscripts,  for  instance,  there  are  said  to 
be  some  8,000.     For  examples  of  the  interpolations  and  omissions 
characteristic  of  the  "Western  Text,"  see  Note  36. 

10.  From  Westcott  and  Hort   The   New   Testament  in  the 
Original  Greek  II.  284. 

11.  On  the  nature  of  the  authority  attaching  to  the  Douay 
Version,  see  Newman:    "It  [the  Douay]  never  has  had  any  epis- 
copal imprimatur  [authoritative  permission  to  print],  much  less 
has  it  received  any  formal  approbation  from  the  Holy  See." 
"The  Rheims  and  Douay  Version  of  Holy  Scripture"  in  Tracts 
Theological  and  Ecclesiastical  410. 

12.  Although  the  rule  enacted  by  the  Congregation  of  the  Index 
under  Benedict  XIV  is  that  only  those  versions  may  be  read  that 
"have  been  approved  by  the  Holy  See,  or  are  published  with 
notes  drawn  from  the  Holy  Fathers  or  from  learned  Catholic 
writers,"  only  the  second  alternative  seems  to  be  followed  in 
practice;  since  it  is  the  custom  of  the  Holy  See  not  to  give  formal 
approval  to  any  vernacular  version  of  Scripture.     See  Kenrick, 


APPENDIX  243 

Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  in  his  General  Introduction  to  the  Books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  ix. 

13.  The  facts  about  the  Old  Latin  Version  are  in  a  somewhat 
chaotic  condition.     Whether,  originally,  there  was  one  version 
or  were  many;  whether  the  typical  version,  to  which  extant  copies 
bear  witness,  was  made  in  North  Africa,  Italy,  or  Gaul;  whether 
the  European  text  of  the  Old  Latin,  which,  subject  to  more  or  less 
revision,  appeared,  for  example,  in  the  edition  used  by  Jerome, 
commonly  called  the  Old  Itala,  was  an  independent  version,  or 
was  descended  from  the  North  African  Version,  are  points  on 
which  scholars  are  not  yet  agreed.     The  main  things  that  concern 
us  are  plain:   (1)  that  the  Old  Latin  Version  that  Jerome  revised 
was  a  faithful  translation;  but  (2)  possessed  of  a  literary  rude- 
ness, or  literalness,  instanced  in  the  use  of  many  Greek  words 
and  grammatical  constructions  foreign  to  the  Latin;  and  (3)  at 
that  time  corrupted  and  existing  in  various  forms.     See  Je- 
rome's Works,  in  Patrologia  Latina,  Migne,  XXIX,  cols.  525  f. ; 
Kennedy  in  Hastings  III.  47-62;  Article  "Vulgate,"  in  McClin- 
tock  and  Strong  X.  825. 

14.  As  to  the  need  of  revision  of  the  Old  Latin,  Augustine, 
the  famous  church  Father,  contemporary  with  Jerome,  writes, 
"...  The  Latin  translators  are  innumerable;  for  in  the  early 
days  of  Christianity,  whoever  got  hold  of  a  Greek  Manuscript  and 
fancied  he  had  some  little  ability  as  a  linguist,  ventured  to  turn 
his  Greek  into  Latin."     On  Christian  Doctrine,  Bk  II,  ch  ii. 
And  Jerome  himself,  in  his  preface  to  the  Gospels,  writes:  "Much 
error  has  crept  into  our  texts  (of  the  Gospels),  since  whatever  any 
evangelist  says  more  than  another,  people  have  added  to  the 
other,  because  they  fancied  he  had  too  little.  .  .  .  The  result  is 
that  our  Versions  of  the  Gospels  are  all  mixed  up."     Again: 
"...  there  are  as  many  copies  of  the  Latin  translations  as  there 
are  codices;  and  everyone  adds  what  he  pleases,  or  subtracts  what 
he  thinks  best."     Jerome's  Works,  in  Migne,  XXIX,  cols.  526  f. 
and  XXVIII,  col.  463. 

15.  The   translators  of   the    King  James    Version  speak   of 
Jerome  as  "a  most  learned  father,  and  the  best  linguist,  without 
controversy,  of  his  age,  or  of  any  other  that  went  before  him,  to 


244  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

undertake  the  translating  of  the  Old  Testament  out  of  the  very 
fountains  themselves,  which  he  performed  with  .  .  .  great  learn- 
ing, judgment,  industry,  and  faithfulness.  .  ."  From  Preface 
to  the  Revision  of  1611,  p.  16. 

Geddes  says:  "St.  Jerome  certainly  knew  more  of  the  Hebrew 
language  than  any  other  Western  Christian  of  his  day:  .  .  .  but  he 
was  inferior  in  that  respect  to  many  moderns."  Prospectus 
47  and  Note. 

16.  On  Jerome's  method  in  revising  the  Gospels,  compare 
his  Preface  to  the  Gospels,  Migne,  XXIX,  col.  525. 

McClintock  and  Strong,  who  give  long  lists  of  examples  of 
changes  in  the  Old  Latin  made  by  Jerome,  conclude  that  a  com- 
parison of  Jerome's  Vulgate  with  the  Old  Latin  in  quotations 
from  the  Fathers  before  his  time,  shows  the  reality  and  character 
of  his  revision.  But  it  shows  also  that  the  revision  was  hasty 
and  imperfect.  Migne,  X,  col.  827. 

Jerome's  revision  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  therefore,  of  the 
Psalms,  received  into  the  Vulgate,  was  from  an  unrevised  copy 
of  the  Old  Latin  Version  of  the  Septuagint,  the  imperfections  of 
which  he  notes.  See  Epistle  to  Sunia  and  Fretula. 

17.  As  to  Jerome's  translation  of  the  apocryphal  book  of 
Tobit,  he  says:  "I  have  satisfied  your  [the  bishops']  wish,  but  not 
my  learning."     Migne,  XXIX,  cols.  23  f. 

Of  the  haste  in  his  translation  of  this  book  and  Judith,  he  tells 
us,  that  he  translated  the  one  in  "a  single  day,"  and  that  the 
other  was  "a  short  effort."  Migne,  cols.  26  and  39. 

18.  There  can  be  no  question,  we  suppose,  that  Jerome  trans- 
lated the  Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew,  or  that  it  was  this 
translation  (with  the  exception  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Apocry- 
pha) that  became  the  Old  Testament  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
See    Jerome,    in    Migne,   Epistle  to    Damasus,    XXXVI,    and 
Preface   to  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  Vallarsi's   Ed.,  IV,  1405. 
Gigot,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Seminary  in  Baltimore,  states  the 
facts  thus:      "...  Our  Latin  Vulgate  has  three  component 
parts.     The  first  part  is  distinctively  St.  Jerome's  work,  inas- 
much as  it  is  no  other  than  his  own  translation  of  the  proto- 
canonical  books  of  the   Old   Testament,    (except  that  of  the 


APPENDIX  245 

Psalter,  as  already  stated)  which  he  rendered  from  the  Hebrew." 
Introduction  320.  In  view  of  these  facts,  one  is  at  a  loss  to 
understand  an  assertion  in  the  Preface  to  the  version  of  the  Holy 
Bible  published  at  Baltimore,  and  bearing  the  printed  "Appro- 
bation of  His  Eminence,  James  Cardinal  Gibbons,  Archbishop  of 
Baltimore."  In  justification  of  the  fact  that  the  Catholic  Bible 
contains  certain  books  not  found  in  other  Bibles,  this  Preface 
says:  "The  Church's  Version,  the  Septuagint,  the  Greek  transla- 
tion from  the  original  Hebrew,  and  which  contained  all  the  writ- 
ings now  found  in  the  Douay  Version,  as  it  is  called,  was  the 
Version  .  .  .  translated  into  Latin,  known  under  the  title  of 
Latin  Vulgate  and  ever  recognized  as  the  true  Version  of  the 
written  word  of  God."  The  Holy  Bible,  Translated  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  etc.,  published  with  the  Approbation  of  Cardinal 
Gibbons,  1899,  Preface,  p.  i. 

It  is  known,  of  course,  that  the  Old  Latin  translation  of  the 
Septuagint  once  bore  the  name  Vulgate.  But  it  is  also  known 
that  that  is  not  Jerome's  Vulgate,  which  was  declared  "authen- 
tic" by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  has  ever  since  been  "recog- 
nized" by  Roman  Catholics  "as  the  true  version  of  the  written 
word  of  God."  Of  the  relation  of  Jerome's  Vulgate  (outside  the 
Psalms)  to  the  Septuagint,  the  most  that  can  be  said  is  that 
Jerome  "did  not  disdain  to  incorporate  parts  of  the  Old  Latin 
Versions"  and  (as  he  says  of  his  translation  of  Ecclesiastes) 
in  general  tried  to  conform  to  the  old  translation  from  the 
Greek,  particularly  that  of  Symmachus,  "in  those  places  where 
it  did  not  show  much  discrepancy  from  the  Hebrew."  This  is  cer- 
tainly a  very  different  thing  from  translating  the  Greek  Sep- 
tuagint. 

Scholarly  Catholics  are  usually  very  glad  to  note  that  in 
Jerome's  Vulgate  the  Old  Testament  comes  from  the  Hebrew 
direct.  The  Catholic  Archbishop  Dixon  says  distinctly,  in  a 
book  from  which  many  Catholic  clergymen  have  received  their 
knowledge  of  these  things:  "Our  Vulgate  is  manifestly  in  these 
[the  Old  Testament  books  other  than  the  Psalms]  a  translation 
from  the  Hebrew."  General  Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures, by  Dixon,  formerly  Professor  of  Sacred  Scripture  and 


246  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Hebrew  .  .  .  Archbishop  of  Armagh  and  Primate  of  all  Ireland, 
I.  107.  But,  since  the  Hebrew  canon,  and  Jerome  following  it, 
both  excluded  the  apocryphal,  or  "deutero-canonical,"  books, 
and  these  were  only  added,  as  above  noted,  to  Jerome's  work 
against  his  own  judgment,  the  Greek  Septuagint  should  not,  one 
would  think,  be  cited  as  "the  true  version  of  the  written  word 
of  God"  to  Catholic  folk,  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  the  enlarged 
canon  of  the  Catholic  Bible.  See  also  White  in  Hastings  IV. 
833  f. 

On  the  opposition  Jerome  met,  see  p.  876  of  the  same  article: 
"The  mutterings  of  suspicion  which  were  aroused  by  the  emended 
version  of  the  New  Testament  were  as  nothing  compared  with  the 
storm  of  indignation  and  opposition  which  the  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew  brought  on  to  Jerome's  head. 
.  .  .  The  great  stumbling  block  was  that  he  should  have  gone 
behind  the  Septuagint  version,  and  made  a  translation  which 
.  .  .  even  set  itself  up  as  an  independent  rival." 

19.  Gigot  (Catholic)  writes:  "During  the  course  of  the  two 
centuries  which  elapsed  between  the  time  of  Saint  Jerome  and 
the  general  reception  of  his  work,  corruptions  of  a  very  extensive 
character  crept  naturally  into  the  text  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
Not  only  the  ordinary  mistakes  of  transcription  .  .  .  were  made 
.  .  .  but  the  peculiar  relation  in  which  our  Vulgate  stood  to  the 
Old  Latin  Version  .  .  .  led  to  a  strange  mixture  of  texts.  From 
sheer  familiarity  with  the  words  of  the  older  version,  the  trans- 
cribers of  the  Vulgate  wrote  down  its  words  instead  of  those  of 
Saint  Jerome.  Another  fertile  source  of  corruptions  .  .  .  con- 
sisted in  the  lack  of  critical  sense  in  most  of  the  transcribers  and 
owners  of  Manuscripts  during  the  Middle  Ages;  time  and  again 
they  inserted  in  their  copies  of  Holy  Writ  glosses  drawn  from  other 
Manuscripts,  from  parallel  passages,  from  the  sacred  liturgy,  from 
the  writings  of  Saint  Jerome,  or  even  of  Josephus,  and  thought 
that  they  had  thereby  secured  what  they  were  pleased  to  call 
'pleniores  codices'  (more  complete  texts),  while  they  had  simply 
added  to  the  corruptions  already  existing."  Introduction  330. 

By  direction  of  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Great,  in  797  the 
scholarly  Missionary-Bishop  Alcuin  made  a  revision  of  the  Vulgate 


APPENDIX  247 

which  was  valuable  and  popular.  It  seems  to  have  been  limited, 
however,  to  a  comparison  of  the  best  Latin  manuscripts  he  could 
obtain.  Near  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  Lanfranc,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  corrected  the  text.  In  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, Stephen  Hardy,  Abbot  of  Citeaux,  compared  good  Latin  and 
Greek  manuscripts,  and  by  aid  of  these  and  the  guidance  in  He- 
brew of  some  Jewish  scholars,  removed  from  the  current  text 
many  interpolations.  In  the  thirteenth  century,  the  copying  of 
Vulgate  Bibles  increased  greatly,  and  among  many  poor  ones 
excellent  "correctoria,"  or  standard  manuscripts,  were  made  by 
societies  of  learned  men.  The  best  of  these  was  the  "Correc- 
torium  Vaticanum,"  which  served  well  to  restore,  in  a  measure, 
Jerome's  text. 

20.  "  It  is  true  that  the  discovery  of  the  art  of  printing  supplied 
the  long  desired  means  of  obtaining  uniform  and  authoritative 
copies  of  the  Vulgate.     But  it  is  true,  also,  that  lack  of  critical 
skill,  desire  of  multiplying  editions  of  the  Bible,  etc.,  betrayed 
the  editors  of  the  fifteenth  century  into  publishing  Manuscripts 
of  the  sacred  text  irrespectively  of  their  origin  and  value." 
Gigot  Introduction  332. 

Among  the  best  of  these  printed  Vulgate  Bibles  were  (1 )  The 
Mazarin,  named  after  Cardinal  Mazarin,  the  owner  of  a  famous 
copy  made  in  1452;  (2)  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  done  by 
Cardinal  Ximenes,  a  very  able  Catholic  scholar,  at  Complutum,  or 
Alcala,  Spain;  and  (3)  Stephanus's  (Etienne's,  or  "Stephen's") 
Vulgate,  on  which  the  Sixtine  revisers  depended  as  much  as  on 
any  one  edition.  This  last  was  the  first  really  critical  piece  of 
work  done  on  Vulgate  Bibles,  though,  unfortunately,  based  on  the 
"Parisienne  Correctorium,"  the  poorest  of  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury standard  copies.  See  Hastings  IV.  878,  879. 

21.  From  the  Latin  of  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Holy  Council 
of  Trent,  Session  IV, — Decree  concerning  the  Edition  and  Use  of 
the  Sacred  Books,  5  f. 

The  oldest  manuscript  of  the  Vulgate  now  known  to  be  in 
existence  is  called  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  because  it  was  formerly 
in  the  Convent  of  Monte  Amiata,  near  Sienna  in  Italy.  It  is  now 
in  the  Mediceo-Laurentian  Library  at  Florence,  and  is  its  greatest 


248  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

treasure.  It  measures  19f  x  13|  x  7  inches;  contains  the  whole 
Bible  with  Preface;  is  written  in  uncial,  or  capital,  letters  on 
1,029  leaves  of  vellum,  in  a  clear  beautiful  hand,  two  columns  to  a 
page.  This  manuscript  was  brought  to  Rome  during  the  Sixtine 
revision  of  the  Vulgate  mentioned  on  pages  78  f .  It  was  made  in 
England,  by  the  order  of  Ceolfried;  and  by  him  presented  to  Pope 
Gregory  II  about  715  A.D.  Condensed  from  The  Codex  Amia- 
tinus  and  Its  Birthplace,  by  White,  273  ff. 

22.  Bingham  (Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church  II.  754)  goes  so 
far  as  to  say:  "We  do  not  thereby  [by  the  Vatican  Decree]  de- 
clare it  [the  Vulgate]  to  be  the  best  translation,  or  absolutely 
without  faults,  but  only  such  a  one  as  we  can  piously  use  and 
read  publicly  in  the  Church."     "What  more  does  the  Council  of 
Trent  assert,  when  she  declares  the  Vulgate  to  be  authentic?" 
From  Prefatory  Note  to  The  Holy   Bible,   translated  from  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  and  published  with  the  Approbation  of  the  Rt.  Rev. 
John  Hughes,  D.D.,  p.  4. 

Similarly,  Geddes  says  that  the  Synod's  declaration  [that  is,  the 
decision  of  Trent]  that  the  Vulgate  was  "  authentic"  did  not  imply 
"an  absolute  and  exclusive  authenticity  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word,  which  gave  it  a  preference  and  superiority  not  only 
over  all  other  translations,  but  also  over  the  originals  them- 
selves." This  "opinion  was  that  of  the  most  ignorant,"  says 
Geddes;  the  opposite  "that  of  the  most  learned  Catholic  theolo- 
gians." Prospectus  10. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  none  but  the  Vulgate  Version 
can  claim  authenticity  under  the  Catholic  ruling;  and  that,  in 
common  practice,  "authentic"  has  usually  been  taken  to  mean 
absolutely  authoritative,  if  not  infallible.  The  most  damaging 
thing  in  the  Decree  was  its  inclusion  of  "controversies,"  which 
certainly  implies  a  standard  of  truth  for  students  as  well  as  a 
usable  guide  for  general  readers.  See  Wetzer  and  Welte  (Ka- 
tholisches)  Kirchenlexikon,  Article,  "Vulgate." 

23.  "He"[Sixtus]  "forbade  expressly  the  publication  of  vari- 
ous readings  in  copies  of  the  Vulgate,  and  declared  that  all  read- 
ings in  other  editions  and  Manuscripts  which  vary  from  those  of 
his  revised  text '  are  to  have  no  credit  or  authority  for  the  future.'  " 


APPENDIX  249 

Gigot  Introduction  337.  "This  edition,"  Sixtus  said,  "is  with- 
out any  doubt  or  controversy  to  be  regarded  by  the  Christian 
public  as  the  Vulgate  Latin  edition  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments received  as  authentic  by  the  Council  of  Trent."  Sixtus 's 
Bull  is  quoted  in  The  History  of  the  English  Bible,  Condit,  314  f. 
It  is  printed  at  length  in  James  Bellum  Papale,  London,  1600. 
The  Bull  is  dated  1589,  and  Sixtus  died  in  1590. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that,  while  the  Sixtine  edition  was 
mechanically  superior  to  the  later  Clementine  edition,  the  text  re- 
vision itself  was  very  bungling.  According  to  Vercellone,  Six- 
tus's  substitutions  of  his  own  readings  for  those  of  his  board  of 
revisers  were  wrong  nineteen  times  out  of  twenty.  Salmon 
says  that  Sixtus's  "infallibility"  was  not  equal  to  the  "patience, 
learning  and  critical  sagacity"  required.  Infallibility  of  the 
Church  228.  After  detailed  comparison  of  the  two  texts,  Mc- 
Clintock  and  Strong  say:  "He  (Sixtus)  had  changed  the  readings 
.  .  .  with  the  most  arbitrary  and  unskillful  hand."  "  The 
Clementine,  though  not  a  perfect  text,  is  yet  very  far  purer  than 
the  Sixtine:"  X.  833.  See  also  Note  20,  end. 

24.  The  inscription  of  the  Clementine  Revision  says  that  the 
work  was  done  in  nineteen  days.     At  any  rate,  it  was  hasty,  allow- 
ing no  time  for  comparison  with  the  originals.     A  second  Clem- 
entine Edition  was  published  in  1593,  and  a  third  in  1598,  with  a 
triple  list  of  errata.     Geddes  estimates  that  the  changes  made  in 
the  Sixtine  Edition  by  the  Clementine  Revision  were  over  2,000. 
The  more  complete  investigations  of  later  scholars  place  the 
number  even  higher, — Vercellone,  3,000;  Gigot,  "some  4,000." 

25.  The  Clementine  second  edition  bore  the  title,  "By  com- 
mand of  Sixtus  V,"  and  the  editors  did  not  use  the  name  Clemen- 
tine until  some  forty  years  after  the  death  of  Clement.     See  also 
Die    Selbstbiographie    des    Cardinals    Bettarmine  .  .  .  mit   ge- 
schichtlichen  Erlduterungen. 

As  to  the  "errors  of  the  press,"  compare  Preface  by  Bellarmine 
to  The  Holy  Bible,  Vulgate  Edition,  edited  by  Tischendorf,  p. 
xxv.  In  his  Autobiography,  just  referred  to,  Bellarmine  uses  the 
expression,  "some  errors  of  the  printers  or  of  others"  ("aliqua 
errata  vel  Typographorum  vel  aliorum").  But  not  even  this 


250  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

faint  hint  of  the  truth  found  its  way  into  the  Preface  which  he 
actually  wrote.  There  he  says  baldly,  "by  the  fault  of  the 
press"  ("prseli  vitio").  In  the  Autobiography  Bellarmine  says 
further  that  his  advice  to  pursue  this  course  pleased  Pope  Gregory 
XIV  and  was  acted  upon  by  Clement  VIII.  Compare,  also,' 
Wetzer  and  Welte  Kirchenlexikon:  "An  obstacle  [to  the  canon- 
ization of  Bellarmine]  was  met  with,  however,  each  time;  the 
question  being  whether  cause  for  not  canonizing  Bellarmine  was 
found  in  the  assertion  in  the  Preface  to  the  Clementine  Edition  of 
the  Vulgate,  prepared  by  him,  that,  'the  errors  of  the  Sixtine 
Edition  were  errors  of  the  press/  as  well  as  in  the  circumstance 
that  he  had  described  the  Clementine  Edition,  upon  the  second 
published  title  page,  as  revised  and  published  by  command  of 
Sixtus."  II.  292.  After  Bellarmine 's  death,  "Cardinal  Azzo- 
lini  urged  that,  as  Bellarmine  had  insulted  three  popes,  and  ex- 
hibited two  as  liars, — namely  Gregory  XIV  and  Clement  VIII, 
his  work  should  be  suppressed  and  burnt,  and  the  strictest  secrecy 
inculcated  about  it.  For,  thought  Azzolini,  what  shall  we  say 
if  our  adversaries  infer  .  .  .  the  pope  can  err  in  expounding 
Scripture; — nay,  hath  erred  .  .  .  not  only  in  expounding  it,  but 
in  making  many  wrong  changes  in  it."  Von  Dollinger,  The  Pope 
and  The  Council,  Authorized  Translation,  51. 

"The  Pope  [Sixtus  VJ  .  .  .  decided  and  gave  order  that  the 
whole  work  be  brought  back  to  the  anvil  (revised)."  "... 
Clement  VIII  .  .  .  has  completed  the  work  which  Sixtus  had 
determined  on."  From  Bellarmine 's  Preface,  xxv.  "It  was 
pretended  that  Sixtus  himself  had  resolved  on  the  suppression, 
but  of  this  there  is  no  proof  and  little  probability."  Geddes 
Prospectus  52. 

"...  Other  things,  which  it  appeared  ought  to  be  altered, 
were  purposely  left  unaltered  ...  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  giv- 
ing offence  to  the  people."  From  Bellarmine 's  Preface,  xxvi. 

26.  "It  is  well  known  that  many  little  corrections  .  .  .  that 
had  been  pointed  out  by  Bellarmine  and  others  have,  from  time 
to  time,  been  admitted  even  into  the  Vatican  impressions;  and 
thence  have  found  their  way  into  most  other  posterior  editions." 
Geddes  Prospectus  52,  Note. 


APPENDIX  251 

"...  There  are  many  passages  in  the  Vulgate  badly  ren- 
dered. .  .  .  Other  faults  have  crept  into  it  since  the  days  of  its 
author,  many  of  which  were  not  corrected  even  by  the  last  re- 
visers. Are  we  to  translate  these  faults  and  retain  these  render- 
ings for  the  sake  of  uniformity?  ...  He  must  be  a  sturdy 
Vulgatist  indeed  who  maintains  so  ridiculous  a  proposition." 
Geddes  105. 

The  Bull  of  Clement  is  quoted  by  White  in  Hastings  IV.  381. 

27.  The  list  of  books  judged  canonical  by  the  Council  of  Trent 
numbers  45  by  count;  but  Jeremiah  and  Lamentations  are  reck- 
oned one. 

The  quotation  respecting  the  canon  is  from  the  Canons  and 
Decrees,  Session  IV,  1546,  confirmed  by  Pius  IV,  1564. 

"  It  is  denied  by  some  theologians  that  the  idea  of  a  curse  prop- 
erly belongs  to  the  anathema  as  used  in  the  Christian  Church." 
Century  Dictionary,  "Anathema."  Yet  the  Catholic  Dictionary 
after  saying,  "In  pronouncing  anathema  against  wilful  heretics, 
the  Church  does  but  declare  that  they  are  excluded  from  her 
communion,"  adds:  "and  that  they  must,  if  they  continue  ob- 
stinate, perish  eternally." 

28.  Of  the  three  most  ancient  biblical  manuscripts  extant,  all 
containing  the  Septuagint  Version  of  the  Old  Testament  in  whole 
or  in  part,  the  Sinaitic  contains  IV  Maccabees,  Epistle  of  Barna- 
bas, and  a  large  part  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  as  well  as  Judith, 
Tobit,  I  Maccabees,  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesiasticus ;  the  Alexandrian 
has  III  Maccabees  and  The  Prayer  of  Manasses,  as  well  as  the 
seven  which  Roman  Catholics  account  canonical ;  the  Vatican  has 
the  Epistle  of  Jeremiah,  besides  five  of  the  seven.     See  Heaford 
Use  of  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Christian  Church. 

The  words  of  another  Roman  Catholic  author,  though  written 
for  another  purpose,  may  be  quoted  in  this  connection:  "Are  not 
our  adversaries  very  inconsistent  in  admitting  one  class  of  deu- 
tero-canonical  books  and  rejecting  others?"  Dixon  General 
Introduction  I.  42. 

The  twenty-four  books  in  the  Hebrew  canon  are  equivalent  to 
the  thirty-nine  in  the  Protestant  canon  because  the  Hebrew 
counted  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets  one  book;  and  the  pah's  I 


252  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

and  II  Samuel,  I  and  II  Kings,  I  and  II  Chronicles,  and  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah,  each  one. 

29.  Professor  Gigot  mentions  Justin  Martyr,  Melito,  and  Ori- 
gen  as  exceptions  to  the  "well-nigh  perfect  unanimity"  of  the 
early  Fathers  in  favor  of  the  canonicity  of  the  books  in  question. 
Origen's  definite  list  of  books  agreeing  with  the  Palestinian  canon 
is  of  some  importance  as  showing  the  crystallization  of  opinion 
and  practice  in  his  time  and  part  of  the  world.     But  it  is  more 
important  not  to  exaggerate  the  weight  of  evidence  from  the 
Fathers  of  the  first  Christian  centuries,  on  either  one  side  or  the 
other.     See  Note  5. 

IrenaBus,  Tertullian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  are  only  some 
of  the  Fathers  that  quote  as  Scriptural  or  prophetical,  books 
which  the  Catholic  Church,  quite  as  much  as  Protestants,  treat 
as  apocryphal.  Nor  should  one  forget  that  even  Jesus  himself, 
we  are  told,  quoted  at  least  one  passage  as  Scripture  that  is  not  in 
the  Old  Testament.  (Jno  7  38.) 

30.  The  testimony  of  Jerome  is  in  part  as  follows:     In  his 
Preface  to  his  translation  of  Kings  he  says:   "...  Whatever  is 
beyond  these   (Hebrew  books)  must  be  reckoned  among  the 
apocrypha.     Therefore  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  as  it  is  commonly 
entitled,  and  the  Book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach  (Ecclesiasticus)  and 
Judith  and  Tobias,  and  the  Shepherd,  are  not  in  the  canon.  ..." 
Gigot  Introduction  56. 

"In  his  Epistle  to  Paulinus,  about  394,  he  draws  up  a  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  without  even  mentioning  the  deutero-canon- 
ical  books,  whilst  in  his  Preface  to  Esdras,  he  says:  'what  is  not 
found  in  them  (Ezra  and  Nehemiah)  and  among  the  twenty-four 
Old  Men  (that  is,  the  twenty-four  books  of  the  Hebrew  canon, 
which  are  equal  to  the  thirty-nine  of  the  Protestant  Bible),  should 
be  put  aside,  and  kept  at  a  considerable  distance  from  them.' " 
Gigot  56. 

31.  After  citing  a  considerable  list  of  church  scholars  of  the 
Middle  Ages  for  and  against  the  canonicity  of  the  books  in 
question,  Gigot  says:  "From   this  simple   enumeration  ...  it 
may  readily  be  inferred  that,  since  their  series  keeps   on  from 
century  to  century,  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  two-fold  opinion 


APPENDIX  253 

current  in  the  Churches  of  the  West,  the  one  favorable  to  the 
writings  which  were  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  other 
ascribing  to  them  only  inferior  authority."  Gigot  Introduc- 
tion 68.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  was  before  the  break 
in  the  Catholic  Church  that  resulted  in  the  Lutheran  Reformation. 

32.  "  During  the  discussion  [at  the  Council  of  Trent]  some  of 
them  [the  Fathers]  expressed  the  wish  that  a  difference  should 
be  indicated  between  the  sacred  books."     Gigot  Introduction  79. 
That  the  Council  left  aside  "the  question  whether  the  sacred  books 
differ  from  one  another  in  other  respects  [than  that  of  sacredness 
and  canonicity],  such  as,  for  instance,  their  usefulness  for  proving 
dogma,  .  .  we  think  may  be  inferred  from  their  express  inten- 
tion 'to  leave  the  question  of  a  distinction  among  the  sacred 
books  as  it  had  been  left  by  the  Holy  Fathers';  and  also  from 
their  substituting  the  expression  'pari  pietatis  affectu'  ['with  a 
feeling  of  equal  loyalty']  for  the  word  'sequaliter'  ['equally']  in 
the  framing  of  the  decree;  because  'there  is  a  great  difference 
among  them/ — that  is,  among  the  sacred  books."     Gigot  81 
and  note. 

33.  Erasmus  and  Ximenes  are  examples  besides  those  already 
named  as  taking  a  position  against  the  full  canonicity  of  the  books 
of  the  second  class  before  the  Council  of  Trent.     Sixtus  of  Sienna, 
Dupin,  Lamy,  and,  in  later  times,  Jahn,  are  instances  of  Catholic 
writers  who,  "even  after  the  dogmatic  decision  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,"  have  "thought  it  still  allowable  to  maintain  a  real  differ- 
ence in  respect  of  canonicity  between  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Old  Testament."     Gigot  Introduction  82  f.     See  also  Strack  in 
Schaff-Herzog  I.  385-389. 

34.  Jerome's  words  as  to  the  use  of  the  Apocrypha  are:  "As 
the  Church  reads  the  Books  of  Judith  and  Tobias  and  of  the 
Maccabees,  but    does  not  receive  them  among    the    canonical 
Scriptures,  so  also  it  reads  these  two  books  (the  Ethics  of  Jesus, 
son  of  Sirach,  and  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon)  for  the  edification  of 
the  people,  but  not  for  the  confirmation  of  revealed  doctrine." 
From  Preface  to  Works  of  Solomon,  in  Gigot  Introduction  56, 
57.     In  another  place  he  says  of  the  Apocrypha:    "The  utmost 
prudence  is  necessary  to  seek  for  gold  in  mud."     Gigot  58. 


254  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Pope  Gregory  the  Great  calls  the  Apocrypha,  "books  which, 
though  not  canonical,  are  received  for  the  edification  of  the 
Church."  Gigot  66,  67. 

Article  VI  of  the  English  Church  reads:  "The  other  books  .  ..  . 
the  Church  doth  read  for  example  of  life  and  instruction  of 
manners;  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply  them  to  establish  any  doc- 
trine." 

"When  Myles  Coverdale  placed  the  Apocrypha,  except  Baruch, 
at  the  end  of  the  New  Testament,  he  expressly  stated  that  'he 
did  not  wish  it  to  be  despised  or  little  set  by';  he  says,  'patience 
and  study  will  show  that  the  canon  and  the  Apocrypha  are 
agreed.' "  See  Heaford  Use  of  the  Apocrypha  62.  Yet  Cov- 
erdale distinguished  the  two,  and  placed  the  Apocrypha  on  a  dis- 
tinctly lower  level.  See  Note  82. 

Forty-one  out  of  fifty-three  of  the  Fathers  of  Trent  voted  to 
pass  over  in  silence,  rather  than  expressly  reject,  the  three  books 
rated  by  Catholics  as  apocryphal,  yet  published  at  the  end  of  the 
Vulgate.  Gigot  speaks  of  these  as  "books  of  manifold  interest," 
78,  119. 

35.  "...  Jerome  had  before  him  only  an  unpointed  text, 
and  felt  repeatedly  bound  to  abide  by  the  established  current 
version  of  the  time  in  order  to  avoid  offending  the  prejudices  of  its 
admirers."     Gigot  Introduction  326. 

36.  Chief  among  these  corruptions  are  "glosses,"  that  is,  mar- 
ginal notes  incorporated  as  part  of  the  text.     For  instance,  tra- 
ditional interpretations,  as  in  Matt  3  15,  20  28;  Lk  3  22  (see  also 
1  46,  12  38).     Also  insertions  from  parallel  passages  in  other  Gos- 
pels:  Matt  3  3;  Mk  16  4;  Lk  1  29,  6  10,  9  43,  50,  54,  112;  and  Jno 
6  56.     In  John,  however,  the  Old  Latin  more  commonly  omits 
than  enlarges.     Thus  there  are  omissions  in:   3  31,  4  9,  5  36,  6  23, 
8  58,  etc.     McClintock  and  Strong  X.  827. 

37.  Among  religious  and  theological  terms  that  we  owe  to  the 
Vulgate,  may  be  noted:  essence,  person,  lecture,  sermon,  grace, 
repentance,    conversion,    redemption,    salvation,    justification, 
sanctification,  regeneration,  revelation,  propitiation,  missionary, 
congregation,  communion,  eternity. 

38.  In  his  commentary  on  Galatians,  Jerome  himself  condemns 


APPENDIX  255 

such  additions  as  3  l  ("that  they  should  not  obey  the  truth")* 
5  21  ("murders"),  and  several  other  Vulgate  translations.  Sim- 
ilarly in  his  commentaries  on  Ephesians  and  Titus.  McClin- 
tock  and  Strong  X.  836. 

We  have  heard  from  Gigot  on  the  text  and  the  canon  of  the 
Vulgate.  None  speaks  with  greater  clearness  than  he  on  Jerome's 
weaknesses  in  translation,  as  well  as  his  strength.  As  his  testi- 
mony cannot  certainly  be  prejudiced  against  the  author  of  the 
Vulgate,  we  give  a  few  statements:  "His  desire  to  avoid  what  he 
considers  useless  repetitions  in  the  Hebrew  narrative  betrays  him 
into  a  complete  suppression  of  important  particulars."  Intro- 
duction 322.  An  example  is  Ex  40  12-15,  where  Jerome  com- 
presses what  the  author  of  the  passage  wrote  into  half  the  space. 

"An  examination  of  his — Jerome's — translation,  such  as  has 
been  made  by  Kaulen  and  Nowack,  verifies  this  expectation  [that 
Jerome  would  be  much  less  literal  than  he  thought  he  was].  It 
is  the  work  of  a  good,  though  by  no  means  immaculate  or  scien- 
tific Hebrew  scholar,  aiming  at  the  sense  rather  than  at  the 
words  of  the  original."  White  in  Hastings  IV.  884. 

39.  "  It  must  even  be  said  that  he  went  still  further,  and  gave 
to  a  few  passages  a  Messianic  character  which  they  never  pos- 
sessed in  the  original;  as,  for  example,  when  he  renders  Isa  16  1, 
'  Send  forth,  O  Lord,  the  lamb,  the  ruler  of  the  earth,  from  Petra 
of  the  desert,  to  the  mount  of  the  daughter  of  Sion '  [Challoner- 
Douay  translation  of  Jerome],  it  is  clear  that  he  inserts  an  allusion 
to  the  future  Lamb  of  God  which  is  unwarranted  by  the  Hebrew. 
In  this  passage,  the  prophet  simply  tells  the  king  of  the  pastoral 
country  of  Moab  so  rich  in  flocks  (Num  32  4)  and  who  formerly 
sent  lambs  as  a  tribute  to  Samaria  (IV  [II]  Kgs  3  4)  that  he 
should  send  them  henceforth  to  Jerusalem.  The  exact  trans- 
lation of  the  verse  is,  therefore,  'Send  ye  the  lambs  of  (due  to) 
the  ruler  of  the  land,  from  Petra,  which  is  toward  the  wilderness, 
to  the  mountain  of  the  daughter  of  Sion.'  [So,  substantially, 
the  American  Revised  Version:  'Send  ye  the  lambs  for  the  ruler 
of  the  land  from  Selah  (or  Petra)  to  the  wilderness,  unto  the 
mount  of  the  daughter  of  Zion.'] 

"  We  might  also  " — continues  Gigot — "point  out  a  certain  mim- 


256  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

her  of  passages  in  which  the  translation  assumes  a  dogmatic  or 
moral  bearing  which  seems  to  be  outside  that  of  the  original. 
The  most  striking  is  to  be  found  in  the  rendering  of  the  well- 
known  passage,  Job  19  25-27,  commonly  appealed  to  as  a  proof 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  The  proof,  indeed,  is  clear 
enough — the  Version  of  St.  Jerome  once  admitted.  But,  as 
many  Catholic  scholars  think,  that  Version  is  neither  literal  nor 
accurate." 

Instead  of  giving  the  Vulgate  Latin  and  the  Latin  translation 
from  the  Hebrew  by  Corluy,  which  Gigot  quotes  at  this  point, 
we  refer  the  reader  to  the  almost  identical  contrast  involved  in  the 
English  translation  of  the  Challoner-Douay  Version  and  the 
American  Revised  Version,  respectively,  which  may  be  found  on 
pages  1 19  f . 

Gigot's  conclusion  on  this  point  is:  "  ...  These  are,  indeed, 
serious  defects  in  our  translation  of  Holy  Writ  [the  Vulgate],  and 
they  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  endeavor  to  determine  the 
extent  to  which  this  official  version  of  the  Church  corresponds 
truly  to  the  original  text.  But  they  should  not  make  us  lose 
sight  of  the  real  excellence  of  St.  Jerome's  translation,  considered 
as  a  whole."  Introduction  324  f.  (Italics  are  ours.) 

The  opinion  of  the  Catholic  scholar,  Richard  Simon,  with 
regard  to  the  consequent  need  of  going  back  of  the  Vulgate  to  the 
originals,  is  as  follows:  "One  cannot  deny  that  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  copies  to  which  Protestants  assign  the  virtues  of  the  origi- 
nals, have  been  altered  in  numberless  places.  Yet  they  should 
not  be  put  aside  for  that  reason  to  follow  wholly  the  ancient  Ver- 
sions, either  Greek  or  Latin,  which  the  Church  has  authorized  by 
long  usages ;  but  these  originals  of  the  Bible  should  be  amended, 
so  far  as  possible,  by  means  of  extant  manuscripts,  and  of  the 
ancient  Versions  of  Scripture.  .  .  .  And  though  we  can  establish 
strongly  a  definite  rule  of  faith  from  the  Versions  which  the 
Church  has  approved  of,  still  the  same  Church  has  not  pretended 
that  these  translations  are  either  infallible  in  all  their  particulars, 
or  that  nothing  more  correct  can  be  had."  Critical  History  of 
the  Old  Testament,  Vol.  I,  Bk  iii,  ch.  18,  pp.  4,  5,  6. 

40.  The  first  and  third  quotations  are  from  a  letter  lately  writ- 


APPENDIX  257 

ten  by  the  Rev.  Father  Early  of  Irvington,  N.  Y.  As  this  letter 
will  be  alluded  to  again,  we  give  here  the  part  of  it  that  is  per- 
tinent: 

"The  Catholic  Church  has  never  prohibited  any  of  her  members 
reading  the  Scriptures  or  Bible.  In  every  family  whose  means 
will  permit  the  buying  of  a  copy,  there  you  will  find  the  Authen- 
tic Version  of  God's  Words  as  authorized  by  the  Church,  and 
which  has  come  down  to  us  unchanged  from  the  time  of  Christ 
Himself.  But  the  Catholic  Church  does  object  to  the  reading  of 
the  Protestant  Version  which  goes  back  only  to  the  days  of 
Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  was  then  gotten  up  for  obvious 
reasons." 

The  second  quotation  is  from  the  Preface  to  The  Holy  Bible 
translated  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  etc.,  revised,  and  published 
with  the  Approbation  of  His  Eminence,  James  Cardinal  Gibbons, 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  p.  2. 

41.  The  purpose  back  of  the  first  Catholic  translation  of  the 
Bible  into  the  English  language  is  told  by  the  Douay  translators 
themselves.     Their  work,  they  say,  was  done  not  from  an  "er- 
roneous opinion  of  necessity  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  should 
always  be  in  our  mother  tongue,  or  that  they  ought  ...  to  be 
read  indifferently  of  all.     Not  for  these  causes  do  we  translate 
this  sacred  book,  but  upon  special  consideration"  that  "diverse 
things  are  .  .  .  medicineable  now  that  otherwise  in  the  peace  of 
the  Church  were  neither  much  requisite,  nor  perchance  wholly 
tolerable."    The  incentive  to  their  labors  has  been  their  com- 
passion to  see  their  "beloved  countrymen  with  extreme  danger  of 
their  souls  to  use  only  such  profane  translations" — as  Protestant 
Bibles — and  also  the   "desires  of  many  devout  persons.  .  .  ." 
(From  Preface  to  Rheims  New  Testament,  2. ) 

42.  The  quotation  concerning  Dr.  Gregory  Martin,  is  from 
Anthony  Wood,  in  the  Oxford  Athenceum,  cited  by  Stoughton 
Our  English  Bible  226. 

43.  "  It  must  be  said  that,  since  the  Douay  Version  was  made 
very  closely  from  Latin  Manuscripts,  or  editions  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  anterior  to  the  official  texts  published  by  the  Popes  Six- 
tus  V  and  Clement  VIII,  it  may  and  does  in  several  cases  point  to 


258  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Latin  readings  no  longer  found  in  our  editions  of  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate."    Gigot  Introduction  348  f. 

44.  "It  [the  Douay  Bible]  is  said,  indeed,  to  have  been  com- 
pared with  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  but  the  collation  must  have 
been  limited  in  scope  or  ineffectual,  for  the  Psalter  (to  take  one 
signal  example)  is  translated,  not  from  Jerome's  version  of  the 
Hebrew,  but  from  his  revision  of  the  very  faulty  translation  from 
the  Septuagint,  which  commonly  displaced  it  in  Latin  Bibles." 
Westcott- Wright  General  View  of  the  History  of  the  Bible  260  f. 

45.  The  Douay  translators  use  the  preceding  English  Protes- 
tant versions,  which  they  industriously  condemned,  chiefly  in 
the  New  Testament.     A  short  example  is  Matt  6  19-21  (spelling 
modernized): 

I.   THE   GENEVAN   VERSION  II.   THE   RHEIMS   VERSION 

Lay  not  up  treasures  for  Heap  not  up  to  yourselves 

yourselves  upon  the  earth,  treasures  on  the  earth:  where 

where  the  moth  and  canker  the  moth  and  rust  do  corrupt, 

corrupt,  and  where  thieves  dig  and  where  thieves  dig  through 

through  and  steal.  and  steal. 

But  lay  up  treasures  for  But  heap  to  yourselves  treas- 

yourselves  in  heaven  where  ures  in  heaven;  where  neither 

neither  the  moth  nor  canker  the  rust  nor  moth  doth  cor- 

corrupteth  and  where  thieves  rupt,  and  where  thieves  do  not 

neither  dig  through  nor  steal,  dig  through  nor  steal. 

For  where  your  treasure  is,  For  where  thy  treasure  is 

there  will  your  heart  be  also.  there  is  thy  heart  also. 

46.  There  is  little,  if  any,  proof  that  the  suspicion  of  King 
James's   translators  was  well-founded,  when  they  wrote  in  the 
Preface  to  their  version  that  the  Douay  translators  had  retained 
Latin  words  "of  purpose  to  darken  the  sense,  that  since  they  must 
needs  translate  the  Bible,  yet  by  the  language  thereof  it  may  be 
kept  from  being  understood." 

Scrivener's   testimony  may  be  found  in  Cotton  Rhemes  and 
Doway  156. 

47.  The  honestly  meant,  but  unscientific  bias  noted,  is  evident 
in  such  passages  as  Gen  3  15.     Here  the  Roman  Catholic  trans- 
lators, blindly  following  the  Latin,  though  they  knew  that  neither 


31TY 

OF 


APPENDIX  259 

the  Hebrew  nor  the  Greek  Septuagint  justified  it,  have  translated 
11  She  shall  bruise  thy  head,"  and  on  this  a  vast  deal  of  doctrine  in 
support  of  the  divine  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  has  been  based. 
See  the  Essay,  Ought  Protestant  Christians  to  Circulate  Romish 
Versions  of  the  Word  of  God?  by  Grant. 

Again  in  Heb.  II21  we  find  the  Challoner  -  Douay  Bible  reads: 
"...  Jacob  dying  .  .  .  adored  the  top  of  his  rod."  Catholics 
have  used  the  passage,  as  translated,  to  justify  the  use  of  cruci- 
fixes and  like  symbols.  See  Essay  just  mentioned.  The  author 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  following  his  Septuagint  transla- 
tion of  the  Hebrew,  understood  Gen  47  31  ("And  Israel  bowed 
himself  upon  the  bed's  head"),  from  which  he  draws  his  illustra- 
tion, to  read,  'rod'  instead  of  'bed.'  In  the  Hebrew,  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  words  is  not  more  than  that  between  a  "t" 
and  an  "1."  But  what  the  author  of  the  New  Testament  Epistle 
wrote  was:  not  "adored  the  top  of  his  rod,"  but:  "adored  (or, 
worshiped)  upon  the  top  of  his  rod  (or,  staff)."  So  the  Ameri- 
can Revision  translates:  "Jacob,  when  he  was  dying  .  .  .  wor- 
shiped (leaning)  upon  the  top  of  his  staff."  The  Catholic  Arch- 
bishop Kenrick  translates:  "And  bowed  towards  the  top  of  his 
staff.  "  Yet  what  do  our  Catholic  popular  translators  and  revisers 
do  but  justify  their  Vulgate  reading  and  the  Genesis  original,  by 
saying  that  both  are  true,  and  Jacob  must  have  turned  to  the  bed 
and  taken  the  rod  to  worship,  not  only  God,  but  also  Joseph. 

Similarly,  the  passages  that  Catholics  like  Lingard  and  Kenrick 
translate  "repent,"  pointing  out  that  the  true  meaning  is  the 
attitude  of  the  heart  toward  sin,  are  still  rendered  in  the  Chal- 
loner-Douay  Bibles:  "Do  penance."  E.g.,  Acts  17  30. 

48.  In  their  Preface  the  translators  say  of  their  work  :  "  We  have 
kept  ourselves  as  near  as  is  possible  to  our  text  and  to  the  very 
words  and  phrases  made  venerable.  .  .  .  though  to  some  profane 
or  delicate  ears  they  may  seem  more  hard  or  barbarous.  ..." 
They  do  this  because  "the  voluntary  translator  may  easily  miss 
the  true  sense  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  extreme  result  of  this  theory  may  be  seen  in  a  few  examples 
from  the  Psalms,  in  which  the  Latin  followed  by  the  Douay  trans- 
lators has  itself  sometimes  lost  the  sense.  Take  Ps  57  (R.  V. 


260  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

58):  9  (R.  V.  8).     As  wax  that  melteth  shall  they  be  taken  away: 
fire  hath  fallen  on  them,  and  they  have  not  seen  the  sun. 

10.  Before  your  thorns  did  understand  the  old  brier;  as  living  so 
in  wrath  he  swallowed  them. 

11.  The  just  shall  rejoice  when  he  shall  see  revenge:  he  shall 
wash  his  hands  in  the  blood  of  a  sinner. 

The  translation  of  the  New  Testament  Epistles  is  but  little 
clearer  than  the  Psalms: 

Rom  5  18.  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  unto  all  men 
to  condemnation:  so  also  by  the  justice  of  one  unto  all  men  to 
justification  of  life. 

7  23.  I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  repugning  to  the  law 
of  my  mind  and  capturing  me. 

9  28.  For  consummating  a  word  and  abridging  it  in  equity:  be- 
cause a  word  abridged  shall  our  Lord  make  upon  the  earth. 

Heb  13  16.  Beneficence  and  communication  do  not  forget,  for 
with  such  hosts  God  is  premerited. 

After  this,  the  reader  may  be  less  surprised  to  read  Geddes's 
verdict:  "The  Douay  Bible,"  he  says,  "is  a  literal  and  barbarous 
translation  from  the  Vulgate  before  its  last  revision."  Pro- 
spectus 110. 

Similarly,  Nary  (Roman  Catholic,  also)  as  early  as  1718  wrote: 
"The  language — of  the  Douay  Bible — is  so  old,  the  words  so  ob- 
solete, the  orthography  so  bad,  and  the  translation  so  literal, 
that  in  a  number  of  places  it  is  unintelligible."  Newman 
Tracts  411. 

49.  For  the  motives  of  Catholic  Revision  of  the  Douay,  lying 
in  its  obscure  language,  see  above  word  from  Nary,  Note  48. 
Nary  was  one  of  the  early  workers  for  a  new  translation. 

As  to  errors  in  the  Vulgate  text,  see  Note  36  above,  also 
Note  24. 

As  to  emulation  of  the  Authorized  Version,  see  Archbishop 
Kenrick's  remark:  "Converts  especially  desiderate  the  energy, 
purity  and  beauty  of  language  which  they  so  enthusiastically 
portray  as  characteristic  of  the  Authorized  Version."  Intro- 
duction 8. 

50.  After  citing  a  number  of  passages,  in  which  he  finds  Chal- 


APPENDIX  261 

loner's  Revision  agreeing,  not  uniformly,  but  prevailingly,  with 
the  Protestant  King  James  Version,  against  the  Douay,  New- 
man says : "  Looking  at  Dr.  Challoner's  labors  on  the  Old  Testament 
as  a  whole,  we  may  pronounce  that  they  issue  hi  little  short  of  a 
new  translation.  They  can  as  little  be  said  to  be  made  on  the 
basis  of  the  Douay  as  on  the  basis  of  the  Protestant  Version.  Of 
course,  there  must  be  a  certain  resemblance  between  any  two 
Catholic  Versions  whatever;  because  they  are  both  translations  of 
the  same  Vulgate.  But,  this  connection  between  the  Douay  and 
Challoner  being  allowed  for,  Challoner's  Version  is  even  nearer  to 
the  Protestant  than  it  is  to  the  Douay;  nearer,  that  is,  not  in 
grammatical  structure,  but  in  phraseology  and  diction."  Tracts 
416.  "After  all  allowances  for  the  accident  of  selection  [of  pas- 
sages to  be  compared]  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that 
at  this  day  the  Douay  Old  Testament  no  longer  exists  as  a  re- 
ceived Version  of  the  Authorized  Vulgate."  Newman  418  f. 
Of  the  New  Testament,  after  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Challoner  "could  not  be  unfaithful  to  the  Vulgate,"  Newman 
shows  that,  in  a  comparison  of  three  passages,  chosen  at  random, 
out  of  thirty-nine  changes  from  the  Rheims  Version,  Challoner 
makes  twenty-nine  accord  with  the  Protestant  Version ;  and  adds : 
"The  second — Challoner — edition,  1750,  differs  from  the  first, 
according  to  the  collations  which  Dr.  Cotton  has  printed,  in  about 
124  passages;  the  third — 1752 — in  more  than  2,000.  These  al- 
terations, Dr.  Cotton  tells  us,  are  all  in  the  direction  of  the  Protes- 
tant Version."  How  far  this  is  the  case,  and  in  what  sense,  New- 
man says  his  explanation  of  Challoner's  relation  to  the  Vulgate 
has  shown. 

Cardinal  Wiseman  says:  "To  call  it  any  longer  the  Douay  or 
Rheimish  Version  is  an  abuse  of  terms.  It  has  been  altered  and 
modified,  till  scarcely  any  verse  remains  as  originally  published." 
Dublin  Review  II.  470. 

51.  As  to  the  Troy  Bible  and  Challoner's  part  in  this,  and  the 
current  editions,  see  Newman  Tracts  422-429;  Gigot  Introduc- 
tion 352  f.  Newman,  with  whom  Gigot  agrees,  says:  "As  regards 
the  Douay  translation  of  the  Old  [Testament]  there  seems  to  be 
very  little  difference  between  the  texts  of  Dr.  Challoner  and  Mr. 


262  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

McMahon  [the  Troy  Bible]."  Newman's  table,  showing  that  the 
variations  of  Catholic  New  Testament  editions  follow  in  nearly 
every  case  either  Challoner  or  Troy,  and  Challoner  more  than 
Troy,  in  the  proportion  of  about  two  to  one,  may  be  found  on 
page  444  of  his  Tracts. 

52.  The  reference  is  to  Dixon  General  Introduction  I.  129. 
So  also  Kenrick  General  Introduction  to  the   New   Testament, 
vii.     The  words  of  Cardinal  Gibbons  are  quoted  from  a  private 
letter,  written  by  his  secretary  in  reply  to  a  request  for  informa- 
tion. 

53.  See  Father  Early's  letter,  Note  40  of  this  Appendix. 

54.  Alcuin,  Bishop  of  York,  in  his  revision  of  the  Vulgate,  made 
for  the  Emperor  Charlemagne,  omitted  the  words  I  Jno  5  7b,  8a. 

Other  passages  for  which  there  is  no  sufficient  manuscript  evi- 
dence are:  Ps  14  (13)  3,  (9  lines) ;  Matt  9  28,  "Unto you,"  17  21, 
18  29,  27  35b;  Lk  4  19  (last  five  words),  22  64,  "And  smote  his 
face;"  Acts  9  5b,  6,  15  34,  28  29;  I  Cor  5  20,  "And  bear;"  Gal  3  1, 
"Obey  the  truth  among  you;"  I  Pet  3  22  (middle  clause);  and 
so  on. 

Jno  7  53 — 8  11  was  incorporated  in  the  Vulgate,  and  is  retained 
in  the  Challoner-Douay,  despite  the  fact  that  it  was  not  in  all  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Old  Latin  Bible  of  which  the  Vulgate,  in  the 
Gospels,  is  a  revision. 

55.  Archbishop  Kenrick's  opinion  on  the  comparative  merits 
of  the  Vulgate  and  the  Hebrew  texts,  and  of  the  "  Protestant " 
translation  (King  James  Version)  is  as  follows:  "The  learned 
are    agreed  that,   in    the    books    of   the  New  Testament,   its 
readings  [those  of  the  Vulgate]  are  generally  preferable.     In 
the  Pentateuch  it  frequently  gives  a  double  version  or  para- 
phrase; or  it  abridges,  to  avoid  repetitions,  so  that  although  it 
faithfully  renders  the  substance,  it  is  not  as  literal  and  close  as  the 
Protestant  translation.     In  the  historical  books  it  scarcely  has 
the  advantage.     In  the  Psalms,  which  came  to  us  through  the 
Septuagint,  the  Protestant  Version,  being  made  from  the  Hebrew, 
is  preferable.     In  Ecclesiasticus,  much  freedom  of  interpretation 
...  is  used.     In  the  Prophets  and  Job  the  Vulgate  is  literal. 
Respecting  it,  as  an  authentic  Version — that  is,  a  standard  to  be 


APPENDIX  263 

followed  in  all  public  acts,  a  safe  guide  in  faith  and  morals,  a 
faithful  representation  of  the  substance  of  the  sacred  writing, — 
I  have,  nevertheless,  read  the  Hebrew  text  with  a  disposition  to 
prefer  its  readings  unless  critical  motives  weighed  in  favor  of  the 
Vulgate.  The  Protestant  Version,  therefore,  being  close,  I  have 
not  hesitated  to  prefer  it,  unless  where  doctrinal  bias  led  its 
authors  to  select  terms  for  controversial  effect,  or  by  para- 
phrases or  otherwise,  to  favor  their  peculiar  tenets."  Kenrick 
General  Introduction  to  the  Historical  Books,  ix. 

On  the  Catholic  versions  independent  of  the  Douay,  Gigot's 
summary  word  is  significant:  "...  Catholic  translators  who 
do  not  connect  their  work  with  the  Douay  Bible  can  hope  only 
for  a  transient  favor  with  the  public  at  large."  Introduction 
356. 

56.  Besides  the  earlier  paraphrases  of  the  8th  to  the  13th 
centuries,  the  14th  century  witnessed  several  translations  into 
English  of  parts  of  the  Scriptures — in  all  about  half  of  the  New 
Testament.     These  have  lately  been  ably  edited  by  Anna  C. 
Paues,   and  published  in  a  volume  with   the  somewhat  mis- 
leading title:  "A  Fourteenth  Century  English  Biblical  Version  " — 
misleading,  for  the  only  14th  century  English  version  of  the  Bible 
known  is  the  Wyclifite. 

57.  The  manuscript  of  the  Wyclifite  Bible  now  in  the  Bodleian 
Library  has  these  words  written  in  Latin,  after  Bar  3  20,  where  a 
break  in  the  work  of  the  translator  occurs:  "Nicolay  de  Hereford 
made    the    translation."      This    was    in   1382,   the   year   that 
Hereford   was  summoned   to   London  to   answer   ecclesiastical 
charges. 

58.  Kenyon  reminds  Gasquet,  who  has  called  in  question  Pur- 
vey's  connection  with  the  revision  of  WychTs  work,  that  the 
probability  of  it  is  based  not  merely  on  the  fact  that  Purvey  was 
the  owner  of  one  of  the  known  copies  of  Wyclif  '&  Bible,  but  that 
the  Prologue  found  in  the  later  version  is  in  Purvey's  own 
handwriting.     Our  Bible  205.     Purvey  was  known  as  Wyclif's 
"glosser."    The  work  was  doubtless  composite.     See  Forshall 
and  Madden  Introduction  to  the  Wy cliff e  Bible,  1850. 

59.  Among  the  manuscripts  in   the  Bodleian  Library,  one 


264  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

marked  "Fairfax  2,"  has  the  subscription,  "Ye  eer  of  ye  lord 
mccc  viii  yis  book  was  endid."  The  fourth  'c'  is  erased  to  make 
the  book  appear  older.  Its  true  date  is  1408  A.D.,  the  year  of  the 
enactment  of  Archbishop  ArundePs  Oxford  Decree.  The  altera- 
tion was  very  clumsily  made,  and  survives  as  a  specimen  of  pious 
fraud  to  deprive  Wyclif  of  the  honor  and  merit  of  his  translation. 
.  .  .  This  version,  lauded  as  superior  to  Wyclif,  turns  out  to  be 
a  veritable  (revised)  Wyclif.  See  Mombert  English  Versions 
of  the  Bible  67  ff.  More  also  quotes  from  this  version  without 
recognizing  it  as  a  Wyclifite  Bible.  Its  Prologue,  which  bears 
internal  evidence  of  being  as  late  as  1395,  through  references  to 
certain  laws,  the  date  of  whose  enactment  is  known  (Life  and 
Opinions  of  Wycliffe,  by  Vaughan,  II.  43,  Note),  was  supposed 
by  More  to  belong  to  his  " century  old"  Bible.  See  Lewis  History 
of  the  Several  Translations  11. 

60.  Gasquet's  argument  may  be  found  in  The  Old  English  Bible 
and  Other  Essays. 

The  question  he  raises  concerns  us  only  so  far  as  the  spirit  of 
the  man  Wyclif  and  of  the  movement  he  represented  enters  into 
his  translation  of  the  Bible.  Because  of  this,  it  is  worth  while  to 
know  who  gave  us  the  Bible  from  which  so  much  of  the  English, 
and  so  much  more  of  the  free  and  devout  spirit,  of  our  Bible  come. 
Some  of  the  facts  and  reasons  which  Gasquet's  theory  either  mis- 
conceives or  ignores,  are,  very  briefly: 

(1)  Henry  Knighton,  Canon  of  Leicester  of  Wyclif 's  time, 
complains:  "This  master  John  Wycliffe  translated  from  Latin  into 
English  the  Gospel."     Chronicon  II.  152.     It  seems  unnatural 
to  understand,  as   Gasquet   does,  the  word  'Gospel'  in   this 
passage,  as  meaning,  "The  Christian  teaching  and  ministry,  rather 
than  the  New  Testament  books." 

(2)  Gasquet  quotes  Archbishop  Arundel  as  writing  to  Pope 
John:  "He — Wycliffe — even  tried  by  every  means  in  his  power  to 
undermine  the  very  faith  and  teaching  of  Holy  Church,  filling  up 
the  measure  of  his  malice  by  devising  the  expedient  of  a  new 
translation  of  Scripture,"  and  Gasquet,  therefore,  concludes  that 
there  must  have  been  a  translation  that  was  not  new  issued  by 
order  of  the  church.     But  the  contrast,  if  there  is  any,  might  be 


APPENDIX  265 

between  Wyclif's  English  and  the  Latin  translation.  However, 
the  position  of  the  Latin  word  for  'new/  in  the  above  sentence, 
were  it  in  decent  Latin  would  certainly — and  in  any  case  does  al- 
most certainly — make  it  mean,  not  'new  translation'  at  all,  but 
'  filling  up  the  measure  of  his  recent  malice,  by  devising  the  ex- 
pedient of  a  translation  of  Scripture.'  If  so,  we  have  one  more 
witness  to  Wyclif  as  the  author  of  our  first  English  Bible  transla- 
tion. 

(3)  The  Wyclif  translators  justify  their  version  on  the  ground 
that  the  people  are  without  the  Bible  in  their  own  language;  and 
appeal  to  the  French  translation  as  setting  them  an  example. 
The  first  argument  would  be  known  by  all  to  be  contrary  to  fact, 
and  the  second  argument  would  be  unnatural,  if  there  were  at  the 
time  a  second  English  version,  whether  first  or  second  were  the 
"orthodox"  Version. 

(4)  "Nothing  can  be  more  damning  (to  the  theory  of  an  ortho- 
dox English  Bible  of  the  fourteenth  century  free  to  all)    than 
licenses  to  particular  people  to  have  English  Bibles ;  for  they  dis- 
tinctly show  that,  without  such  license,  it  was  thought  wrong  to 
have  them."     Trevelyan  England  in  the  Age  of  Wy cliff e  362. 

(5)  There  is  a  definite  record  that  Nicholas  Hereford  trans- 
lated part  of  the  Old  Testament  of  Wyclif's  Bible.     But,  as  Here- 
ford was  a  Wyclifite  Lollard,  he  certainly  would  not  be  employed 
to  make  a  translation  for  the  church  of  his  day. 

61.  The  quotation  from  Milman  concerning  Wyclif's  character 
is  taken  from  Storrs  Oration  on  John  Wydiffe  78,  Note;  that 
from  Lewis,  from  his  History  of  the  Life  and  Sufferings  of  Wy  cliff  e; 
and  that  from  Knighton,  from  Hoare  The  Evolution  of  the  English 
Bible  61. 

62.  Hoare  quotes  Wyclif  as  acknowledging,  in  his  Truth  of  Holy 
Scripture,  "his  expectation  that  he  will  either  be  burnt,  or  else 
be  put  out  of  the  way  by  some  other  form  of  death."     Yet  he  per- 
sisted, "confident  that  in  the  end  the  truth  must  prevail."    Evo- 
lution 90. 

63.  "It  is  a  great  mistake,"  says  Mombert,   "to  represent 
Wycliffe  as  deficient  in  learning  or  judgment.     But  a  man  that 
called  the  Pope  'anti-Christ';  the  proud  worldly  priest,  'the  most 


266  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

cursed  of  clippers/  and  the  papacy,  with  its  sacerdotalism,  par- 
dons, indulgences,  excommunication,  absolution,  pilgrimages, 
images  and  transubstantiation,  'a  gigantic  fraud,' was  not  likely 
to  be  held  in  high  favor  in  the  Church  of  the  fourteenth  century." 
See  English  Versions  41.  Also  Wyclif  on  "Priests  Good  and 
Bad  "  in  Vaughan  Wydiffe  II.  259-262. 

64.  Sir  Thomas  More  says,  Wyclif  "purposely  corrupted  the 
Holye  Texte."     But  More  offers  no  proof.     Wyclif 's  purpose  he 
himself  expresses  in  the  Preface  to  his  Harmony  of  the  Gospels, 
"That  I  may  fulfil  that  is  set  in  the  draft  [translation]  of  the  book, 
and  that  he  at  whose  suggestion  I  this  work  began,  and  they  that 
this  work  read,  and  all  Christian  men  with  me,  through  doing  of 
that  that  is  written  in  this  book,  may  come  together  to  that  bliss 
that  never  shall  end."     From  Westcott  General  View  16. 

65.  As  to  the  church  authorities'  attitude  toward  Bible  trans- 
lation, see  Letter  of  Archbishop  Arundel,  cited  above ;  also  Decree 
of  a  Church  Council  held  at  Oxford,  1408,  in  Wilkins  History 
of  Councils  III.  317. 

66.  The  influence  of  Wyclif's  translation  on  the  English  Bible 
as  we  have  it — beyond  the  influence  of  its  part  in  the  historic  move- 
ment which  gave  us  any  English  Bible  at  all — has  been  extremely 
minimized  by  some,  and  extremely  magnified  by  others.     West- 
cott, for  example  (General  View  135,  Note  4  and  Appendix),  says: 
"The  Wycliffite  Versions  do  not  seem  to  have  exercised  any  influ- 
ence on  the  later  English  Versions,  unless  an  exception  be  made 
in  the  case  of  the  Latin-English  Testament  of  Coverdale.  .  .  . 
The  coincidences  of  rendering  between  this  and  Purvey  (Wycliffe's 
Revised  Edition)  are  frequently  remarkable,  but  as  both  literally 
reproduce  the  Vulgate,  I  have  been  unable  to  find  .  .  .  any  cer- 
tain proof  of  the  dependence  of  one  on  the  other.     So  far  as  Tyn- 
dale  is  concerned, — and  his  work  was  the  undoubted  basis  of  the 
later  revisions — his  own  words   are  sufficient:  'I  had/  he  says, 
'in  the  New  Testament  no  man  to  counterfeit  (imitate) — neither 
was  helped  with  English  of  any  that  had  interpreted  the  same 
or  such  like  thing  in  the  Scripture  beforetime.'     (Epistle  to  the 
Reader  I.  390.)" 

^  On  the  other  hand,  Marsh,  in  his  Lectures  on  the  English  Lan- 


APPENDIX  267 

guage,  First  Series,  627  f.,  says:  "Tyndale  is  merely  a  fullgrown 
Wy cliff e,  and  his  rescension  of  the  New  Testament  is  just  what  his 
great  predecessor  would  have  made  it,  had  he  awaked  again  to 
see  the  dawn  of  that  glorious  day  of  which  his  own  life  and  labors 
kindled  the  morning  twilight.  Not  only  does  Tyndale  retain  the 
grammatical  structure  of  the  older  Version  but  most  of  its  felic- 
itous verbal  combinations  and  rhythmic  periods  which  are  again 
repeated  in  the  rescension  of  1611.  Wycliffe,  then,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  having  originated  the  diction  and  phraseology,  which 
for  five  centuries  has  constituted  the  consecrated  dialect  of  the 
English  speech." 

The  first  statements  in  both  of  these  quotations  seem  to  go  be- 
yond the  facts.  The  frequent  identity  of  language  in  the 
Wyclifite  versions  and  either  Tyndale 's,  Coverdale's  or  the  Ameri- 
can Revised  Version,  is  too  evident  to  deny  "any  Wycliffite 
influence  on  the  later  English  Versions."  The  sameness  of  the 
Latin  Version  translated,  would,  certainly,  account  for  some 
words  being  the  same  in  the  English  of  Wyclif  and  the  English 
of  Coverdale;  but  this  does  not  apply  to  either  Tyndale  or  the  late 
revisions,  for  these  were  mainly  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek. 
Tyndale 's  own  testimony,  quoted  by  Westcott,  is  somewhat  hard 
to  understand;  yet,  in  view  of  the  similarity  existing  between 
Wyclif 's  and  his  own  translation,  "the  same  or  such  like  thing 
which,"  he  says,  "no  man  had  translated  before  him  for  his  help 
in  the  English,"  must  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  which  Tyndale  was  the  first  to  render  into  English.  In- 
deed, Westcott  (General  View  App.  VIII),  admits  that  Tyndale 
must  have  known  and  used  the  Wyclifite  Versions,  "  even  though 
he  could  not  follow  their  general  plan,  as  being  a  secondary  trans- 
lation only." 

Wyclif  owed  something  to  the  fragmentary  English  versions 
before  his  own;  and  his  language,  in  turn,  must  have  become 
familiar  to  English  Bible  students  in  the  century  and  a  half  be- 
tween his  day  and  Tyndale's.  We  give  a  few  well-known  verses, 
which  show  both  the  likeness  and  the  difference.  In  the  Pauline 
Epistles  the  likeness  is  less.  In  reading  such  comparisons,  it 
must  be  constantly  remembered  that  a  striking  likeness  in  Ian- 


268  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

guage  of  certain  passages,  does  not  imply  a  likeness  throughout 
the  book  in  the  substance  of  the  translations.  Scholars  whose 
investigations  have  been  the  most  minute  and  fair,  assure  us  that 
Tyndale's  debt,  and  so  our  debt,  to  Wyclif  is,  not  for  the  exact 
substance,  but  for  the  form  of  the  translation. 

PURVEY'S  WYCLIF  TYNDALE'S 

Matt  6  9-13 

Our  Father  that  art  in  heav-  O  Our  Father  which  art  in 
ens,  hallowed  be  Thy  name;  heaven,  hallowed  be  Thy  name. 
Thy  kingdom  come  to;  be  Thy  Let  Thy  kingdom  come.  Thy 
will  done  in  earth  as  in  heaven ;  will  be  fulfilled,  as  well  in  earth 
Give  to  us  this  day  our  bread  as  it  is  in  heaven.  Give  us  this 
over  other  substance ;  and  for-  day  our  daily  bread.  And  for- 
give to  us  our  debts,  as  we  for-  give  us  our  trespasses  as  we 
give  to  our  debtors.  And  lead  forgive  our  trespassers.  And 
us  not  into  temptation,  but  de-  lead  us  not  into  temptation; 
liver  us  from  evil.  Amen.  but  deliver  from  evil.  For 

thine  is  the  kingdom  and  the 
power  and  the  glory  forever. 
Amen. 

Matt  5  3-6 

Blessed  be  poor  men  in  spirit,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit, 

for  the  kingdom  of  heavens  is  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 

theirs.  heaven. 

Blessed  be  they  that  mourn,  Blessed  are  they  that  mourn, 

for  they  shall  be  comforted.  for  they  shall  be  comforted. 

Blessed  be  mild  men,  for  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for 

they  shall  wield  the  earth.  they  shall  inherit  the  earth. 

A  few  particular  phrases,  out  of  many,  may  be  compared  also, 
with  their  form  in  the  American  Revised  Version. 

WYCLIF  AMERICAN   REVISED 

Matt  7  14 

Streit  is  the  gate  and  narewe  Narrow  is  the  gate  and 
the  weye.  straitened  the  way. 

Matt  23  15 
compass  sea  and  land.  compass  sea  and  land. 


APPENDIX  269 

Matt  25  21 

Enter  thou  into  the  joye  of       Enter  thou  into  the  joy  of 
thy  Lord.  thy  Lord. 

Jno  3  3 

No  but  a  man  schal  be  born        Except  one  be  born  anew, 
again. 

/  Cor  2  10 
The  depe  thingis  of  God.  The  deep  things  of  God. 

/  Cor  10  16 

The  cuppe  of  blessynge  the        The  cup  of  blessing  which 
which  we  blessen.  we  bless. 

Jas  1  5 
and  upbraydith  not. 1  and  upbraideth  not. 

67.  Before  1408  no  serious  objection  had  been  made  by  the 
Catholic  Church  to  the  possession  of  copies  of  the  English  Bible  by 
the  clergy,  the  religious  or,  probably,  the  wealthier  people.     The 
use  of  such  books  by  the  middle  and  lower  classes  had  long  been 
prohibited.     After  the  Arundel  Constitution  of  1408,  the  danger 
of  reading  or  owning  the  Scriptures  without  special  license  in- 
creased, and  the  registers  of  dioceses,  like  those  of  Norwich  and 
Lincoln,  show  several  cases  of  men  charged  with  such  offenses. 
See    Paues   English    Version,    Introduction,    xxxii.     Westcott 
General  View,  17  8. 

68.  The  principal  significance  of  Erasmus's  Greek  text  was  in 
the  challenge  its  publication  by  a  Catholic  of  learning  and  in- 
fluence gave  to  the  hitherto  generally  accepted  theory  of  the 
verbal  inspiration  and  special  sanctity  of  the  Latin  Vulgate. 
Tyndale  had  a  more  reliable  help,  by  way  of  Hebrew  and  Greek 
texts,  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  Bible  edited  by  Cardinal 
Ximenes.     This  contained,  besides  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scrip- 
tures, the  Septuagint,  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  the  Chaldee  para- 
phrase of  the  Pentateuch,  with  a  Latin  translation;  Greek  and 
Hebrew  grammars  and  a  Hebrew  lexicon. 

69.  Hoare  Evolution  116  quotes  Cardinal  Bellarmine  as  fol- 


270  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

lows  (but  without  reference  that  one  could  test):  "Some  years 
before  the  rise  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  there  was  almost  an  entire 
abandonment  of  equity  in  the  ecclesiastical  judgments;  in  morals 
no  discipline,  in  sacred  literature  no  erudition,  in  divine  things  no 
reverence:  religion  was  almost  extinct." 

70.  "  Upwards  of  350  of  such  books  [the  Tyndale  New  Testa- 
ment] had  been  introduced  into  Oxford  in  a  single  visit  by  a  single 
agent.     And  they  were,  with  very  little  reserve,  offered  for  sale  in 
the   streets  of  London   in   hundreds."      Demaus   Biography  of 
William  Tyndale  262.      The  long  struggle  of  Church  and  State 
to  maintain  the  repression  of  the  people  was  at  last  coming  to  an 
end. 

71.  Gigot,   whom  we  have  listened   to  with  respect,   says: 
"The  first  to  succeed  Wy cliff e  in  the  work  of  translating  Holy 
Writ  into  English"  were  "men  of  comparatively  little  ability,  and 
of  more  or  less  doubtful  character."    Again:  "  'They  had/  says 
Blunt,  'too  easy  a  confidence  in  their  own  abilities  for  this  great 
work;  and  their  translations  met  with  an  opposition  from  more 
learned  scholars.  .  .  .  Nor  were  the  characters  of  the  translators 
themselves  such  as  were  likely  to  command  the  respect  of  men 
under  the  responsibility  of  important  offices  in  the  Church/ 
These  words  of  a  Protestant  writer  are  not  too  severe  to  describe 
such  men  as  William  Tyndale,  .  .  .  Miles  Coverdale,   .  .  .  and 
John  Rogers.  .  .  ."     Introduction  346  and  358  f.     Father  Early 
of  Irvington,  N.  Y.,  also  says:    "The  Protestant  Version  which 
goes  back  only  to  the  days  of  Henry  VIII  of  England,  and  was 
then  gotten  up  for  obvious  reasons."     (For  letter  in  full,  see 
Note  40  of  this  Appendix.) 

In  passing,  it  may  be  noted  that  "the  Protestant  Blunt" 
whom  Gigot  cites  in  support  of  his  estimate  of  William  Tyndale 
and  his  successors,  was  a  Churchman  of  the  stripe  that 
would  "be  sure  that  the  Catholic  faith  is  still  held  by  the  Church 
of  England,"  and  "let  Rome  treat  us  how  she  will  .  .  .  still 
claim  union  with  her."  BJunt  The  Reformation  of  the  Church 
of  England  15. 

72.  Tyndale's  declaration,  in  a  private  letter,  as  to  his  con- 
scientious rectitude  in  his  work,  sounds  like  the  self-testimony  of 


APPENDIX  271 

an  honest  man.  "  I  call  God  to  record  .  .  .  that  I  never  altered 
one  syllable  of  God's  word  against  my  conscience,  nor  would  this 
day,  if  all  that  is  in  the  earth,  whether  it  be  pleasure,  honor  or 
riches,  might  be  given  me."  Demaus  William  Tyndale  336. 
His  life  and  work  squared  with  his  profession. 

Tyndale 's  words,  expressing  his  heroic  facing  of  anticipated 
death,  are  from  his  Preface  to  Parable  of  the  Wicked  Mammon 
I.  44.  Quoted  by  Westcott  General  View  37. 

His  estimate  of  the  hierarchy  of  his  time  was  this:  "The  rulers 
of  the  Church  be  all  agreed  to  keep  the  world  in  darkness,  to  the 
intent  that  they  may  sit  in  the  consciences  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
This  moved  me  to  translate  the  New  Testament."  Preface  to 
Translation  of  the  Pentateuch. 

73.  Tyndale  had  spoken  unceremoniously  in  writing  of  Thomas 
Aquinas,  as  mere  "draff."     Thereupon  the  "Gentle  Knight,"  Sir 
Thomas  More,  let  loose  this  diatribe :  "...  This  drowsy  drudge 
hath  drunken  so  deep  in  the  devils'  dregs,  that  but  if  he  wake  and 
repent  himself  the  sooner,  he  mayhap  ere  aught  long  to  fall  into 
the  mashing-fat,  and  turn  himself  into  draff  as  [which]  the  hogs  of 
hell  shall  feed  upon  and  fill  their  bellies  thereof."     From  More's 
Confutation  672.     Cited  in  Demaus  William  Tyndale  284. 

Unbelievable  as  it  seems,  More's  grievance  against  Tyndale — 
and  apparently  his  only  grievance — was  that  he  had  substituted 
in  his  Testament  modern  and  sometimes  less  fitting  words  for  the 
church  words,  charity,  penance,  priest,  church,  salvation  and 
others  endeared  by  long  usage  but  unfortunately  then  associated 
with  distinctively  Roman  Catholic  doctrines  and  practices. 

Tyndale,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  grim  and  satirical  polemic 
and  his  Bible  comments  were  sometimes  warped  by  his  preju- 
dices. 

74.  King  Henry's  agent,  Vaughan,  reports  to  him  Tyndale's 
conversation  with  him  at  Bergen  in  1531,  as  follows:  "If  it  would 
stand  with  the  King's  most  gracious  pleasure  to  grant  only  a  bare 
text  of  the  Scripture  to  be  put  forth  among  his  people,  ...  be 
it  the  translation  of  what  person  soever  shall  please  His  Majesty, 
I  shall  immediately  repair  into  his  realm  and  there  most  humbly 
submit  myself  offering  my  body  to  suffer  what  pain  or  torture, 


272  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

yea,  what  death  his  Grace  wills;  so  that  this  be  obtained."  This 
does  not  sound  like  one  of  the  men  whom  Blunt  and  Gigot  say, 
"had  too  easy  a  confidence  in  their  own  abilities  for  this  great 
work."  Demaus,  Tyndale's  biographer,  before  Gigot  character- 
ized him  as  "a  more  or  less  doubtful  character,"  says:  "Of  the 
excellence  of  his  moral  character,  fortunately  no  defence  has  ever 
been  required.  .  .  .  Friends  and  enemies,  in  his  own  time  and  in 
subsequent  ages,  have,  with  unvarying  consent,  repeated  the 
same  encomiums.  No  voice  of  scandal  has  ever  been  raised 
against  him."  William  Tyndale  484. 

75.  The  first  reference  is:  Gigot  Introduction  359. 

Sir  Thomas  More,  who  has  been  seen  to  be  not  over  considerate 
of  Tyndale,  writes  of  him  that  "  before  he  went  over  the  sea,  he 
was  well  known  for  a  man  of  right  good  living,  studious  and  well 
earned  in  Scripture."  George  Joy,  also  an  enemy,  in  his  Apology 
to  Wm.  Tyndale,  alludes  to  his  "high  learning  in  his  Hebrew, 
Greek  and  Latin."  Both  are  quoted  by  Hoare  Evolution  141. 
According  to  an  eminent  German  scholar,  H.  Buschius,  who  met 
him  at  Worms  in  1526,  Tyndale  was  "so  skilled  in  seven  languages, 
Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Italian,  Spanish,  English  and  French, 
that,  whichever  he  spoke,  you  would  suppose  it  was  his  native 
tongue."  Schelhorn  Pleasures  of  Literature  IV.  431.  See 
Milligan  in  Hastings  IV.  856,  Note.  Mombert,  after  a  severe 
analysis  of  Deut  6  6-9,  says:  "The  rendering  of  these  four  verses 
proves  an  independent  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Ger- 
man and  English."  English  Versions  116. 

76.  Westcott  says:    "If  he — Tyndale — used  the  Vulgate,   or 
Erasmus,  or  Luther,  it  was  with  the  judgment  of  a  scholar. 
[He  shows]  complete  independence  in  this  respect."     "The  very 
minuteness  of  the  changes  is  a  singular  testimony  to  the  diligence 
with  which  Tyndale  still  labored  at  his  appointed  work.     Noth- 
ing seemed  trifling  to  him,  ...  if  only  he  could  better  seize  or 
convey  to  others  the  meaning  of  one  fragment  of  Scripture." 
General  View  150  f.     For  detailed  proof,  see  136-145. 

A  somewhat  adverse  critic  proves  the  same  quality  in  citing 
Tyndale's  words:  "I  have  weeded  out  of  it  many  faults  which 
lack  of  help  at  the  beginning  and  oversight  did  sow  therein." 


APPENDIX  273 

Dore  Old  Bibles:  Account  of  Early  Versions  of  the  English  Bible, 
1888,  p.  25. 

As  to  Tyndale's  conscientious  purpose  as  a  translator,  his  own 
witness  has  been  given.  The  only  proof  offered  to  the  contrary 
that  we  know  of,  is  the  following  from  Blunt  Reformation  514, 
Note:  "In  some  editions  of  Tyndale's  New  Testament  there  is 
what  must  be  regarded  as  a  wilful  omission  of  the  gravest  possible 
character;  for  it  appears  in  several  editions.  .  .  ."  The  passage 
is  I  Pet  2  13,  14,  concerning  the  king  and  his  rule.  Blunt  names 
the  editions  of  1531  and  1534.  These  editions  we  have  not  been 
able  to  see.  In  the  edition  of  1526,  reprinted  verbatim,  the 
whole  of  both  verses  is  included.  "  It  is  to  him  [Tyndale]  that 
we  owe  in  great  part  .  .  .  that  freedom  from  dogmatic  bias  and 
scrupulous  fidelity  to  the  exact  letter  of  Scripture,  which  have 
been  in  general  such  happy  features  of  our  English  Versions." 
Milligan  in  Hastings  IV.  857a. 

77.  See  Mombert  English  Versions  93;  Hoare  Evolution  120; 
Milligan  in  Hastings  IV.  856b.     Even  Dore  says  of  him:  "To  him 
we  owe  the  exceeding  beauty  and  tender  grace  of  the  language  of 
our  present  New  Testament,  for  in  spite  of  many  revisions, 
almost  every  sentence  is  substantially  the  same  as  Tyndale  wrote 
it  in  1525."     Old  Bibles  25.     To  delight  in  the  strength  and 
beauty  of  the  English  of  the  King  James  Version  (see  Gigot 
Introduction  365),  and  yet  sneer  at  Tyndale,  is  like  revelling 
in  the  sunlight  while  decrying  the  sun. 

78.  For  Tyndale's  purpose  see  his  "Protestation,"  in  the  1534 
Edition  of  his  New  Testament. 

As  to  his  influence,  "  It  has  been  calculated  that,  in  the  whole  of 
Tyndale's  New  Testament,  the  number  of  'stranger'  words,  or 
words  that  do  not  occur  in  the  Authorized  Version,  is  probably 
below  350,  many  of  which  are  used  once  or  twice  only."  Moul- 
ton  History  of  the  English  Bible  70  f. 

The  quotation  from  the  English  Revisers  is  the  first  part  of  the 
Preface  to  the  New  Testament,  Edition  of  1881. 

79.  "I  make,"  writes  Coverdale,  "this  protestation,  having 
God  to  record  in  my  conscience,  that  I  have  neither  wrested  nor 
altered  so  much  as  one  word  for  the  maintenance  of  any  man- 


274  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

ner  of  sect.  .  .  ."  Remains  of  Myles  Coverdale,  Edited  by 
Pearson,  11. 

In  conformity  to  others'  opinions,  he  even  went  so  far  as  to 
restore  the  old  ecclesiastical  words,  saying,  "For  my  part  I  ... 
am  indifferent  to  call  it  as  well  with  the  one  term  as  the  other,  so 
long  as  I  know  it  is  no  prejudice  nor  injury  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  (Westcott  General  View  29.) 

Coverdale  is  one  of  the  translators  whom  Blunt  and  Gigot,  as 
we  have  seen,  describe  as  having  "too  easy  a  confidence  in  their 
own  abilities  for  this  great  work."  Yet  Coverdale  was  one  of  the 
most  modest,  not  to  say  timorous,  of  men.  "It  was  neither  my 
labor  nor  desire  to  have  this  work  put  in  my  hand  .  .  .";  yet 
"when  I  was  instantly  required,  though  I  could  not  do  so  well  as  I 
would,  I  thought  it  yet  my  duty  to  do  my  best,  and  that  with  a 
good  will."  And  "whereinsoever  I  can  perceive  by  myself  or  by 
the  information  of  other,  that  I  have  failed  (as  it  is  no  wonder)  I 
shall  now  by  the  help  of  God,  overlook  it  better  and  amend  it." 
Westcott  12,  14. 

80.  See  Title-page  to  Coverdale's  Bible,  Edition  of  1535.     (So 
copy  in  British  Museum.) 

"Its  basis  [that  of  Coverdale's  New  Testament]  is  Tyndale's 
first  edition,  but  this  he  very  carefully  revised,  by  the  help  of  his 
second  edition,  and  yet  more  by  the  German."  Westcott  Gen- 
eral View  171.  Coverdale's  work  is  characterized  by  smooth- 
ness rather  than  great  accuracy. 

81.  We  owe  to  Coverdale  such  Old  Testament  passages  as: 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while 
he  is  near,"  and  "  They  shall  perish,  but  thou  shalt  endure;  they 
all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a  garment,  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou 
change  them,  and  they  shall  be  changed."     A  few  of  his  fitting 
words  contained  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  are:  "  firstborn  son  " 
(1  25),  "  a  leathern  girdle  "  (34),  "because  of  their  unbelief  "(1358), 
"It  will  be  foul  weather  to-day"  (16  3),  "Have  patience  with 
me  "(18  26),  "  there  will  the  eagles  be  gathered  together  "  (24  28). 

82.  "He  put  them  [the  Apocryphal  books]  between  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New,  with  the  title:      'Apocripha.     The 
bookes  and  treatises  which  amonge  the  fathers  of  olde  are  not 


APPENDIX  275 

rekened  to  be  of  like  authoritie  with  the  other  bokes  of  the  byble, 
nether  are  theyfounde  in  the  Canon  of  the  Hebrue.' "  Porter 
in  Hastings  I.  123. 

83.  "Of  the  three  millions  of  people,  or  thereabouts,  then  living 
in  England,  many  were  still  attached  to  the  old  Roman  Catholic 
order  of  things,  and  many  were  unable  to  read.     But  there  was  an 
eager,  wide-spread  desire  among  the  people  to  obtain  and  to  read 
the  Scriptures."     Fisher  History  of  the  Christian  Church  352. 

" '  Every  one/  says  Strype, '  who  could  buy  this  book,  either  read  it 
assiduously,  or  had  it  read  to  him  by  others,  and  many  well  ad- 
vanced in  years  learned  to  read  with  the  same  object.' "  Taine 
History  of  English  Literature,  Ch.  v,  249. 

In  1534,  and  again  in  1536,  Convocation  expressed  its  change 
of  feeling  toward  the  translating  of  the  Scriptures,  in  resolutions 
petitioning  that  a  new  translation  might  be  undertaken. 

84.  "To  make  use  of  words  in  a  foreign  language,  merely  with 
a  sentiment  of  devotion,  the  mind  taking  no  fruit,  could  be 
neither  pleasing  to  God  nor  beneficial  to  man."     (From  Letter  of 
Henry  VIII  to  Cranmer,  quoted  by  Taine  English  Literature 
252.) 

Already  in  the  fourteenth  century,  it  will  be  remembered, 
England  had  refused  payment  of  the  annual  tribute  to  the  See 
of  Rome. 

85.  The  very  excesses  to  which  the  spirit  of  liberty  in  the  use 
of  the  Scriptures  went,  itself  proves  that  the  primary  motive  for 
translation  carne,  not  from  the  King  or  his  antagonism  to  the 
papacy,  but  from  the  people  who  were  experiencing  a  tremendous 
revulsion  from  the  ignorance  and  tyranny  of  the  past. 

86.  See  Pearson  Remains  of  Myles  Coverdale  11  f. 

87.  A  critical  examination  by  scholars  of  Coverdale's  Bible, 
has  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  "five  sundry  interpreters 
[translators] "  he  alludes  to,  were:    (1 )  the  Zurich  German  Bible, 
(2)  Luther's  German  Bible,  (3)  Tyndale's  English  Pentateuch, 
Jonah  and  the  New  Testament,  (4)  Pagnini's  Latin  Bible  of  1528, 
(5)  the  Vulgate  Latin. 

88.  John  Rogers's  honesty  and  earnestness,  if  also  a  certain 
self-assurance,  are  characteristically  reflected  in  his  reply  to  the 


276  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

sentence  placing  him  under  the  "great  curse  of  the  Church'* 
"Well,  my  lord,  here  I  stand  before  God  and  this  honorable 
audience,  and  take  him  to  witness  that  I  never  wittingly  and 
willingly  taught  any  false  doctrine;  and  therefore  I  have  a  good 
conscience  before  God  and  all  good  men.  I  am  not  afraid  but  that 
you  and  I  shall  come  before  a  Judge  which  is  righteous,  before 
whom  I  shall  be  as  good  a  man  as  you;  and  where,  I  nothing 
doubt,  I  shall  be  found  a  true  member  of  the  Catholic  Church  and 
everlastingly  saved."  Life  of  John  Rogers,  by  Chester,  183. 

89.  It  is  recorded  of  Rogers  that  at  Cambridge  "he  profitably 
travailed  in  good  learning."     He  was  appointed  rector  of  Trinity 
the  Less,  in  London,  and  in  1551  was  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's. 

90.  Tyndale's  and  Coverdale's  Old  Testament  translation  was 
corrected  chiefly  by  reference  to  Sebastian  Munster's  Latin  Ver- 
sion, which  Kenyon  characterizes  as  "immensely  superior  to  the 
Zurich  Latin  Bible,"  which  Coverdale  had  before  used.     The 
revision  of  Tyndale's  New  Testament  was  by  aid  of  Erasmus's 
Latin. 

91.  A  hint  of  the  care  exercised  by  the  Genevan  Revisers  is 
given  in  the  fact  that,  though  the  New  Testament  they  used  was 
itself  a  revision  of  Tyndale's  by  Whittingham,  one  of  their  o\vn 
number,  of  forty  changes  made  in  one  section  from  Whittingham 's 
renderings,  twenty-six  of  these  were  retained  by  King  James  s 
Revisers  in  1611. 

The  Genevan  Bible  was  a  translation  "according  to  the  Ebrue 
and  the  Greke";  yet  its  editors  amended  considerably  Tyndale's 
and  Coverdale's  work  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  Matthew's 
Bible,  by  the  use  also  of  Beza's  Latin,  representing  Stephanus's 
latest  Greek  text,  and  the  French  Olivetan  Version. 

92.  Westcott  (General  View  269,  Note  2)  notes  three  or  four 
instances  of  unfair  bias  in  favor  of  Calvinistic  doctrine  in  the 
English  Genevan  Version,  as  cited  by  the  French  critic  P.  Coton. 

Acts  3  21,  (Jesus  Christ)  whom  heaven  must  contain  (Ge- 
nevan). 

Whom  heaven  indeed  must  receive  (Challoner-Douay). 

Whom  the  heaven  must  receive  (A.  V.  and  Am.  Rev.). 

I  Cor  9  27, 1  myself  should  have  been  reproved  (Genevan). 


APPENDIX  277 

I  myself  .  .  .  become  a  castaway  (Challoner-Douay). 

Be  a  castaway  (A.  V.),  be  rejected  (Am.  Rev.). 

As  these  two  examples  indicate,  the  points  would  pass  wholly 
unnoticed  to-day.  Then  they  were  sore  spots  of  controversy, 
concerning  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and  election. 

The  fact  is  the  temper  of  the  times  was  intensely  dogmatic. 
Men  might  easily  be  unable  to  see  any  but  their  own  dogmas  in 
Scripture,  and  translate  accordingly  with  perfect  honesty  of 
purpose.  In  this  spirit  the  Genevan  pastors  fought  shy  of  the 
word  "tradition."  On  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  verses  for 
which  the  Catholics  then  demanded  that  "tradition"  should  be 
the  translation,  is  now  translated  "ordinances"  even  in  the 
Challoner-Douay.  (I  Cor  11  2.) 

93.  "Truly,  good  Christian  reader,"  say  King  James's  trans- 
lators,  "we  never  thought  from  the  beginning  that  we  should 
make  a  new  translation,  nor  yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good 
one;  .  .  .  but  to  make  a  good  one  bettei^  or  out  of    many 
good  ones,  one  principal  good  one."     (From  the  Preface  to  the 
Reader. ) 

94.  How  little,  especially  in  the  Prophets,  the  King  James's 
Revisers  kept  to  the  less  reliable  Bishops'  Bible,  though  it  was 
their  formal  basis,  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  three  verses 
from  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  according  to  the  Bishops' 
translation.     The  words  underlined  are  the  words  changed: 

But  who  hath  given  credence  unto  our  preaching;  or  to  whom 
is  the  arm  of  the  Lord  known?  For  he  did  grow  before  the  Lord 
like  as  a  branch  and  as  a  root  in  a  dry  ground:  he  hath  neither 
bounty  nor  favor;  when  we  look  upon  him,  there  shall  be  no  fair- 
ness; we  shall  have  no  lust  unto  him.  He  is  despised  and  ab- 
horred of  men:  he  is  such  a  man  as  hath  good  experience  of  sor- 
rows  and  infirmities:  we  have  reckoned  him  so  vile  that  we  hid 
our  faces  from  him. 

Nearly  all  the  words  substituted  for  these  came  from  either 
the  Latin  of  Pagninus,  the  Latin  of  Tremellius,  or  the  Genevan 
English. 

Eadie  mentions  the  following  among  many  phrases  taken  by 
the  King  James's  translators  from  the  Roman  Catholic  Rheims 


278  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

Testament:  "Unction  from  the  holy  one/'  "Lead  captive  silly 
women  laden  with  sins,"  "Evil  communications  corrupt  good 
manners." 

95.  See  Preface  of  King  James's  translation,  page  31. 

If  one  cares  to  know  what  texts  the  translators  of  the  Author- 
ized Version  most  depended  on,  they  seem  to  have  been  these: 

1.  In  the  Old  Testament: 

(1)  An  interlinear  Latin  translation,  1572,  based  on  that  of 
Pagninus,   by  Montanus,   worthy  successor   of    Cardinal 
Ximenes,  together  with  the  Hebrew  text. 

(2)  A  Latin  translation,  1599,  of  the  Hebrew,  by  Tremellius, 
a  Jew. 

2.  In  the  New  Testament: 

(1)  Stephanus's  (Etienne's)  Greek  Text,  based  on 

(a)  The  latest  editions  of  Erasmus's  Greek,  which  was 

made  from  six  manuscripts,  none  ancient. 
(6)  Ximenes's  Greek  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  which 
was  made,  in  turn,  from  fifteen  manuscripts.     Two  of 
these  were  ancient. 

(a)  The  sixth  century  Codex  of  Beza. 
Ql)  The  Paris  MS.  of  the  Four  Gospels. 

(2)  Beza's  Greek  Text. 

96.  Gigot  says:    "Differently  from  the  Douay  Bible,  cases  of 
wilful  perversion  [see  Notes  47  and  92]  of  Scripture  have  been 
brought  home   to  its   Protestant   authors."     Introduction  366. 
As  proof  he  cites  five  such  passages  in  the  Authorized  Version  of 
the  New  Testament  that  "have  justly  been  pointed  out  by  Arch- 
bishop Kenrick,  as  so  many  dogmatic  erroneous  renderings,"  while 
he  remarks:  " It  is  only  right  to  add  that  some  of  these  have  been 
corrected  by  the  revisers  of  1881."    These  five  are: 

(1)  Matt  19  11. 

Challoner-Douay:  All  men  take  not  this  word  [about  mar- 
riage]. 

Authorized:   All  men  cannot  receive  this  saying. 

American  Revised:    Not  all  men  can  receive  this  saying. 

There  are  fairly  two  sides  to  this  question.  The  word  trans- 
lated "do  not  take"  in  the  Catholic  Version,  and  "can- 


APPENDIX  279 

not  receive"  in  the  Authorized  Version,  means  literally, 
'make  room  for.'  Jesus's  word  may,  therefore,  mean, 
'Not  all  men  make  room  for,  or  receive,  this  saying.' 
Yet  the  word  means  also  to  'have  room  for.'  Here  the 
idea  of  inability  to  contain,  or  to  receive,  is  involved  in 
the  meaning  of  the  negative  of  the  verb  itself, — 'not  to 
have  room  for.'  See  Liddell  and  Scott  Greek  Lexicon 
793,  x«p«"  (choreo)  III;  "  77  ir6\is  avrov  ov  xo>pe?, — the  city 
cannot  contain  him." 

(2)  I  Cor  7  9. 

Challoner-Douay:    But  if  they  do  not  contain  themselves, 

let  them  marry. 

Authorized:  But  if  they  cannot  contain,  etc. 
English  and  American  Revised:   If   they  have  not  conti- 

nency,  etc. 

Here  the  "cannot"  of  the  Authorized  Version  does  not 
seem  necessarily  implied  in  the  Greek  word. 

The  Douay  and  Revised  Versions  appear  to  be  more  true. 

(3)  I  Cor  9  5. 

Challoner-Douay:     Have  we  not  power  to  carry  about  [!] 

a  woman,  a  sister? 
Authorized:  Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a 

wife? 

English  and  American  Revised:  Have  we  no  right  to  lead 
about  a  wife  that  is  a  believer? 

There  is  some  question  here  about  the  order  of  words 
in  the  text.  But  it  does  not  affect  the  Roman  Catholic 
complaint,  that  a  word  which  means  'woman/  Protes- 
tants translate  'wife/  in  order  to  prove  Paul  married. 
Every  scholar,  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant,  knows 
that  one  established  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  used 
is  'wife.'  Why  does  not  the  Challoner-Douay  Version 
translate  the  same  word  in  Eph  5  28  'women'  and 
'woman/  and  make  it  read,  "So  also  ought  men  to  love 
their  women.  .  ."  "He  that  loveth  his  woman,  loveth 
himself"  ?  Of  course  they  translate,  "  love  their  wives," 
"loveth  his  wife."  Is  this,  then,  "wilful  perversion"? 


280  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

(4)  I  Cor  11  27. 

The  Authorized  Version  translates  wrongly,  "eat  this  bread 
and  drink  this  cup,"  where  the  Challoner-Douay  reads 
correctly,  "eat  this  bread  or  drink  the  chalice."  The 
error  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  corrected  in  the  Revised 
Version,  which  reads,  "or  drink  the  cup." 

(5)  Heb  10  38. 

Challoner-Douay:   But  my  just  man  liveth  by  faith;  but  if 

he  withdraweth  himself,  he  shall  not  please  my  soul. 
Authorized:    Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith;  but  if  any 

man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him. 
Revised:    But  my  righteous  one  shall  live  by  faith: 

And  if  he  shrink  back,  my  soul  hath  no  pleasure 
in  him. 

The  text  (see  Liddell  and  Scott  Greek  Lexicon  743  and 
Thayer  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament 
645)  justifies  all  these  translations.  None  of  them  can  be 
called  incorrect. 

Of  these  five  cases,  then,  cited  in  proof  of  "dogmatic,"  "erro- 
neous "  and  "wilful  perversion,"  only  two  appear  to  be  errors  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  and  both  of  these  are  corrected  in  the 
American  Revised  Version. 

Similarly  Newman,  in  the  Dublin  Review,  XXXIV.  466,  says 
that  the  Authorized  Version  "is  notoriously  unfair  where  doctrinal 
questions  are  at  stake,"  and  speaks  even  of  its  "dishonest  render- 
ings." What  is  his  evidence?  Matt  19  11  and  I  Cor  11  27,  noted 
above;  Acts  1  8,  in  which  the  Authorized  Version,  "after  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  come"  is  more  accurate  than  the  Challoner- 
Douay,  for  the  phrase  rendered  by  the  Challoner-Douay,  "the 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  upon  you"  is  what  is  called  a 
"Genitive  Absolute,"  expressive  of  the  time  when  an  action 
takes  place,  and  the  form  of  the  verb  used  expresses  a  com- 
pleted action,  rendered  by  the  American  Revisers,  "when  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  come";  also  Gal  1  18,  in  which  the  two  versions  are 
almost  identically  the  same. 

97.  The  author  cited  is  Kenyon  Our  Bible  233. 

Consult  the  following  expressions  from  Roman  Catholics  of  the 


APPENDIX  281 

"music"  of  the  King  James  Version:  Faber,  in  Dublin  Review, 
June,  1883,  p.  466,  Note.  Also  Newman,  on  the  same  page.  Also 
see,  among  Protestant  appreciators,  Marsh,  Lecture  XXVIII,  in 
Lectures  on  the  English  Bible. 

Perhaps  the  best  witness  to  the  worth  of  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion as  a  whole  is  that  of  the  Revisers  of  1881,  who  say  in  the 
Preface  to  then*  own  revision,  "We  have  had  to  study  this  great 
version  carefully  and  minutely  .  .  .  and  the  longer  we  have  been 
engaged  upon  it,  the  more  we  have  learned  to  admire  its  sim- 
plicity, its  dignity,  its  power,  its  happy  turns  of  expression,  its 
general  accuracy,  and  .  .  .  the  felicities  of  its  rhythm." 

98.  Hugh  Broughton,  probably  the  most  learned  scholar  in 
Hebrew  of  the  time,  but  a  man  of  testy  temper,  and  not  appointed 
on  King  James's  Board  of  Translators  for  that  reason,  said  of  the 
Authorized  Version  when  completed:    "Tell  His  Majesty  that  I 
had  rather  be  rent  in  pieces  by  wild  horses  than  that  any  such 
translation  by  my  consent  should  be  urged  upon  poor  Churches." 

99.  The  edition  of  1656  was  said  to  contain  2,000  faults.     The 
American  Bible  Society  undertook  two  rescensions  on  its  own 
account,  which  corrected  many  errors.      Mombert  English  Ver- 
sions 366. 

100.  The  necessity  of  keeping,  in  the  main,  to  the  "Received 
Text,"  is  due  to  the  lack  of  other  means  of  correcting  it  than  the 
Septuagint.     The  Septuagint  may  often  be  right,  but  in  its  pres- 
ent state  it  is  more  faulty  than  the  Hebrew  we  have  got.     Very 
recently,  however,  some  fragments  of  papyrus  have  been  found, 
containing  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Shema  (Deut  6  41) 
in  Hebrew.     (Edited  by  Cook,  in  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of 
Biblical  Archeology.)     The  appearance  of  the  papyrus  and  hand- 
writing are  believed  to  point  to  a  date  not  later  than  the  second 
century  A.D.     The   text  agrees   in   several  instances  with  the 
Septuagint  against  the  Massoretic  or  Hebrew  Text.     It  may  be, 
therefore,  that  new  discoveries  may  yet  make  possible  a  direct 
revision  of  the  Hebrew  Text  of  our  Old  Testament.     See  Burkitt 
in  Cheyne  IV,  col.  5014. 

101.  The  publication  in  1810-1826,  by  the  great  Hebrew  scholar 
Gesenius,  of  his  monumental  works  on  the  Hebrew  language, — 


282  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

lexicon,  grammar,  history  and  thesaurus, — was  both  an  evidence 
of  this  work  and  a  chief  help  in  its  prosecution. 

102.  See  Westcott  and  Hort  New  Testament,  II,  Introduction 
72-80.     See  Tischendorf's  fascinating  account  of  the  finding  of 
the  Sinaitic  MS.,  in  his  book,  TheSinaitic  Bible  and  Its  Discovery. 
Ladd,  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture,  gives  an  account  of  the  MSS. 
sufficiently  full  for  most.     See  also  Articles  on  "  Manuscripts," 
under  their  symbolic  letters  (Note  2)  in  Hastings. 

103.  Bible  societies  in  America,  dissatisfied  with  the  imperfect 
state  of  the  English  texts  they  were  reproducing,  made  emenda- 
tions, now  to  secure  exact  conformity  to  the  edition  of  1611,  again 
to  improve  upon  it.   These  emended  editions,  however,  in  no  con- 
siderable degree  satisfied  the  demand  for  a  thorough  revision. 
For  the  growing  consciousness  of  this  need  of  revision,  see  the 
books,  An  Essay  for  a  New  Translation  of  the  Bible,  by  Ross, 
London,   1702;  Reasons  for  Revising,  Cambridge,  1788;  Obser* 
vations  on  the  Expediency  of  Revising  the  Present  English  Ver* 
sion,  Symonds,  1789;  Bible  Revision,  Slater,  1856;  and  On  the 
Authorized  Version,  Trench.     Also,  for  a  later  view,  The  Revision 
of  the  English  Version,  by  Lightfoot,  Trench  and  others,  London, 
1873. 

104.  For  these  facts,  see  Prefaces  to  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments of  the  English  Revision  of  1881  and  1885,  published  with 
the  Revised  Bible. 

105.  The  changes  in  the  English  Revision  from  the  Authorized 
Version  have  been  estimated  at  36,000,  counting  every  letter  and 
punctuation  mark.     These  things  are  not  unimportant  in  so 
great  a  work;  yet  the  impression  of  change  may  easily  be  greatly 
exaggerated  through  such  a  statement  unexplained. 

For  antagonism  to  the  Revision,  see  Burgon,  The  Revision 
Revised,  and  Prebendary  Miller,  in  the  Oxford  Debate,  on  the 
textual  work  done  for  the  Revised  New  Testament.  See  also 
a  recent  scholarly  estimate,  Burkitt  in  Cheyne  IV,  col.  4977. 

106.  The  first  words  are  Whiton's,  Article,  "The  American 
Revision  of  the  Bible,"  Outlook,   LVIII,   418.     The  quotation 
from  Jerome  is  found  in  his  works,  Epistle  28. 

107.  Other  cases  of  evident  or  apparent  interpolation,  which 


APPENDIX 


283 


have  been  dropped,  bracketed  or  placed  in  the  margin  in  the 
Revised  Version,  are: 

I  Jno  3  16,  Hereby  know  we  (the)  love  (of  God). 

I  Tun  3  16,  (God)  who  was  manifested. 

Eph39,  .  .  .  by  J 'esus  Christ. 

Mk  16  9-20,  (The  closing  verses  of  the  Gospel). 

Jno  7  53-8  11,  (The  story  of  the  Woman  taken  in  Adultery). 

Lk  22  43,  44,  (The  bloody  sweat). 

Jno  5  4,  (The  angel  troubling  the  water). 

Acts  8  37,  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest,  etc. 

All  except  the  first  two  of  the  above  passages  are  retained 
without  mark  or  question  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Version.  This 
is  typical. 

108.  Important  corrections  in  translation  have  been  made  in 
conformity  with  what  appears  to  be  the  true  words  that  were 
written.  A  very  few  examples  are: 


CHALLONER-DOUAY 


Tn  a  little  thou  per- 
suadest  me  to  be- 
come a  Christian. 


For  the  desire  of  money 
is  the  root  ol  all  evils. 


And  whithersoever 
thou  shalt  go:  and 
remember  thou  wast 
taken. 


We  are  become  as  in 
the  beginning  when 
thou  didst  not  rule 
over  us,  and  when 
we  were  not  called 
by  thy  name. 


AUTHORIZED    VERSION 

Acts  26:28 

Almost  thou  persuad- 
est  me  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian. 

I  Tim  6:10 

For  the  love  of  money 
is  the  root  of  all  evil. 

Gen  20:16 

and  with  all  other:  thus 
she  was  reproved. 


Isa  63:19 

We  are  thine:  thou 
never  bearest  rule 
over  them;  they  were 
not  called  by  thy 
name. 


REVISED   VERSION 


With  but  little  per- 
suasion thou  would- 
est  fain  make  me  a 
Christian. 


For  the  love  of  money 
is  a  root  of  all  kinds 
of  evil. 


and  In   respect   of  all 
thou  art  righted. 


We  are  become  as  they 
over  whom  thou 
never  barest  rule,  as 
they  that  were  not 
called  by  thy  name. 


109.  Gigot,  the  Roman  Catholic  scholar  we  have  often  and 
justly  introduced  as  witness,  while  pointing  out — what  is  no  doubt 
true — that  the  Revised  New  Testament  cannot  be  "  considered  as 


284  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

a  final  translation,"  yet  says:  "It  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  it 
has  been  steadily  gaining  ground  among  the  scholars  of  the  various 
denominations."  Of  the  Revised  Old  Testament,  he  says:  "... 
The  Revisers  did  not  avail  themselves  freely  enough  of  all  the 
critical  work  which  has  been  going  on  during  the  last  hundred 
years";  yet  "...  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  most  changes — 
especially  as  regards  the  interpretation  of  the  prophetical  and 
poetical  books — the  Revisers  were  particularly  happy."  Intro- 
duction 376-378. 

110.  Preface  to  English  Revised  Version  of  1881,  p.  6. 

111.  This  should  be  sharply  distinguished  from  an  edition  of  the 
English  Revised  Version  published  in  1898,  with  merely  those 
readings  and  renderings  that  were  formerly  published  in  the 
appendices,  embodied  in  the  text.     For  this  edition  the  American 
Revision  Committee  were  in  no  way  responsible. 

112.  For  facts  on  this  and  the  following  pages,  see  the  Prefaces 
to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  .  .  .  newly  edited  by  the  Amer- 
ican Revision  Committee,  1901  A.D. 

113.  The  American  New  Testament  Company,  with  perhaps 
excessive  conservatism,  did  not  feel  "at  liberty  to  make  new 
changes  of  moment"  that  had  not  been  discussed  with  the  English 
Company.     Preface,  iii. 

114.  Other  examples  of  corrected  passages  are:  Isa3032;358; 
Hos  11  2;  Mic  1  6;  Acts  17  22. 

If  the  Douay  translators  were  living,  they  would  observe  that 
some  of  the  passages  in  the  Protestant  versions  of  their  day, 
which  they  cited  as  "heretical  translations,"  are  translated  in  the 
American  Revision  substantially  as  they  desired.  To  this  extent, 
the  American  Revision  substantiates  their  complaint.  These 
Catholic  translators,  in  turn,  themselves  become  witnesses  to  the 
scrupulous  fidelity  of  the  Revised  Version.  Instances  are:  Gen 
4  7;  31  19;  Matt  26  26;  Mk  10  52;  Jno  9  22. 

Again,  of  five  passages  cited  by  Cardinal  Wiseman  (Dublin 
Review,  April,  1837,  II  489  ff.)  in  evidence  of  the  need  of  a  thor- 
ough revision  of  the  Catholic  versions,  all  are  still  rendered 
wrongly  according  to  Cardinal  Wiseman,  in  Gibbons's  Edition  of 
the  Challoner-Douay  Version;  and  all  but  one  of  those  contained 


APPENDIX  285 

in  the  American  Revised  Version  are  there  rendered  correctly, 
according  to  the  same  authority. 

The  passages  are:  Ps  50  14  (51  12);  Zeph  3  18:  Wisd  8  2;  Jno  2  4; 
Heb  11  l. 

115.  See  Preface  to  the  Old  Testament,  Eng.  Rev.  Version,  3. 

116.  The  translators  of  the  Douay  Bible,  though  not  living, 
still  bear  witness  to  the  fidelity  of  the  American  Revisers  in  re- 
spect of  the  titles  of  the  New  Testament  books,  although  the  Chal- 
loner-Douay,  now  circulated  among  the  Catholics  of  America, 
has  departed  from  their  example  in  this  matter.     "We  say  not  in 
the  titles  of  the  Gospels  .  .  .  Saint  Matthew,  Saint  Mark,  Saint 
Luke,  because  it  is  so  neither  in  Greek  nor  Latin."     See  preface 
to  the  Douay  Bible,  21  f. 

117.  See  Preface  to  the  American  Edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, last  paragraph. 

118.  Possibly  it  may  help  some  readers  to  judge  whether  the 
closing  words  of  the  American  Revisers'  Preface,  and  of  this  essay, 
are  well  warranted  or  not,  if  we  exhibit — not  some  exceptional 
part — but  two  or  three  short  passages  of  average  sort  from  the 
genuine  Douay,  the  Challoner-Douay  and  the  American  Revised 
Versions: 


286  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

'  *-<  o>     i?  '  JL  o  dn  s-i-o  '  «  '  a>  a  -j-d  '      o  fact)  ,1  o-d 

£°s  £"§g          .«  sissiji       !§£§  aasfe^f 

ill  fit 
I    Hii    ffllP 

w         3s   ^s         £«^o2     5a        8^-°;  lliS13 si 

§s?o  2  Jifl3* 
•§sl«lsl 


•oo  S 


^Mi:|g    -*w.p.«HH 

is^    pliillllill 


\^  ~**4 

IP:  jiiii 

^r<^-2^B«  PM        O        oS^^L.tO 

rt§*S     *i  .*  ^^feg    *5l§l' 


Q§     ^^E«^3 
*"  -     ^-^^St^o 
?fflo2-S 


III!  Hill 


°t3g     l|i 

Eg, 

§gs«   •S-3_"C  =  d 
J    ° 


»-<  cfl  «  »  2        <n  H«  O  >"       OJ—'Qj 

I!SM1 


feS-cso     fe^^^-S® 
5a5S     ^.^^  -^"^5«°     ""S5  o^SJi     £  .a43  §i<S"S-: 

Wi  ?r.=!        Ulfi«fi|5      «1C  gg-d^g 


^         "sr.s    ^?s  ?3^Boois_§51-'        lsS|  ."S^^^-S. 

g         °^S    g*J  fi£g-«S^|^»         g^ol-sg^g500^^ 

?fi.^       ?.fl..lri     gl^il|^llli 


j3Si|gff< 

'19SaSlf 


fi. 


•§^3«S0-nS5£<!^ 
<1  ^ 


APPENDIX  287 


sl|ea§Oh.I 


i  •  11 1 

+S**-<  X  k0  ^  4^  j-i        O^-*fe^+Jfl?fl3 


fill! 

KH  fo 


THIRD  ESSAY 

1.  References  to  and  proofs  of  the  facts  here  stated  will  be 
found  under  the  chapters  dealing  more  fully  with  these  subjects. 

2.  Father  Prendergast  of  the  College  of  St.  Francis  Xavier. 

3.  II  Mace  12  46;  Ecclus  24  24,  26  3-16. 

4.  In  the  early  days  of  the  church  the  word  "  canon  "  was  some- 
times used  to  describe  the  39  books  of  the  Old  Testament  without 
and  sometimes  with  the  Apocrypha. 

The  testimony  of  the  early  church  on  the  canon  of  Scripture 
is  shown  by  (1)  catalogues  of  books  of  the  Bible,  (2)  decrees 
of  Councils,  and  (3)  statements  of  theologians. 

The  facts  next  stated  are  taken  from  Green  General  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament— The  Canon  157  f.: 

I.  CATALOGUES 

For  inclusion  in  Canon  Against  inclusion  in  Canon 

A.D.  A.D. 

Council  of  Hippo 397      Meli to,  Bishop  of  Sardis ..   180 

Council  of  Carthage 397      Origen 254 

St.  Augustine 400      Athanasius  of  Alexandria.  350 

Innocent     I,     Bishop     of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 351 

Rome 405      Epiphanius  of  Cyprus ....   350 

Gelasius 492      Amphilochius  of  Iconium.  375 

Gregory  Nazianzen 370 

Hilary  of  Poitiers 368 

Ruffin  of  Aquileia 400 

Jerome 382 

[The  above  dates  are  intended  to  be  only  approximate.] 

Green  (167-174)  points  out  that  Augustine's  influence  over- 
shadowed all  others  in  the  Councils  of  Hippo  and  Carthage,  and 
these  three  catalogues  are  equivalent  to  one  witness  only.  Pas- 
sages in  his  writings  prove  beyond  doubt  that  he  ranked  the 
Hebrew  canon  above  the  other  books  included  in  his  catalogue. 
He  and  his  Councils  used  the  word  "canon"  in  its  wider  sense. 

288 


APPENDIX  289 

Of  the  catalogues  of  Innocent  and  Gelasius,  Westcott  (Bible  in 
the  Church  175)  says,  "Both  lists  simply  repeat  the  decision  at 
Carthage,  and  determine  the  ecclesiastical  canon,  the  books,  that 
is,  which  might  be  publicly  used  in  the  Church  Services." 

On  the  Catholic  point  of  view  we  quote  Waterworth  Faith  of 
Catholics  I.  325:  "To  give  those  catalogues  in  an  isolated  manner, 
as  representing  the  opinions  of  those  writers,  would  not  only  be  an 
imperfect,  it  would  be  an  incorrect,  statement  of  their  views." 
Library  of  St.  Francis  de  Sales,  III,  The  Catholic  Controversy 
116:  "We  must  not  think  that  the  ancient  Church  and  these 
most  ancient  doctors  would  have  had  the  boldness  to  rank  these 
books  as  canonical,  if  they  had  not  had  some  direction  by  the 
tradition  of  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples,  who  could  know  in 
what  rank  the  Master  Himself  held  them." 

II.  DECREES  OF  COUNCILS 

For  inclusion  in  Canon  Against  inclusion  in  Canon 

A.D.  A.D. 

Council  of  Trent 1546      Synod  of  Laodicea 363 

Sanction  of  Patriarch  of  Confession    of    Faith    of 

Jerusalem 1672          Greek  Church 1631 

(Ecumenical    Council    of  Orthodox     Teaching     of 

Vatican 1865          Metropolitan  of  Moscow  1836 

Authorized  Russian  Con- 
fession     1839 

III.  STATEMENTS  BY  THEOLOGIANS 

Jerome,  who  translated  the  Vulgate,  expressly  states  in  his 
preface  that  the  Apocrypha  includes  those  writings  which  make 
a  claim  to  be  on  a  par  with  the  canonical  books  to  which  they  are 
not  rightfully  entitled  and  adds  that  whatever  is  additional  to  the 
Hebrew  canon  (which  excluded  it)  is  to  be  placed  in  the  Apocry- 
pha. Green  160. 

On  this  The  Catholic  Controversy  III.  101  says:  "As  for  St. 
Jerome  whom  you  allege,  this  is  not  to  the  purpose,  since  in  his 
time  the  Church  had  not  yet  come  to  the  resolution  which  she 
has  come  to  since  as  to  placing  of  these  books  in  the  canon  except 


290  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

that  of  Judith. "  The  fact  that  they  are  in  the  Vulgate  is  the  basis 
of  the  contention  for  making  these  books  canonical. 

Cardinal  Ximenes  in  the  preface  to  the  Complutensian  Poly- 
glot dedicated  to  Pope  Leo  X  declares  against  the  Apocrypha. 

Cardinal  Capellan  in  his  preface  to  a  Commentary  on  the  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament,  says  (Green  177  f.):  "The 
whole  Latin  Church  is  very  greatly  indebted  to  Saint  Jerome  for 
distinguishing  the  canonical  from  the  noncanonical  books,  since 
he  has  freed  us  from  the  reproach  of  the  Hebrews  that  we  frame 
for  ourselves  books  or  parts  of  books  of  the  old  canon  which  they 
lack  entirely."  These  books  "do  not  belong  to  the  rule  for  con- 
firming those  things  which  are  of  faith;  yet  they  can  be  called 
canonical,  that  is,  belonging  to  the  rule  for  the  edification  of  be- 
lievers. With  this  distinction  what  is  said  by  Augustine  and 
written  by  the  Council  of  Carthage  can  be  rightly  apprehended." 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  Apocrypha  are: 

1.  Its  inclusion  in  some  early  versions   (the  Septuagint  and 
others);  but  Green  (128)  considers  that  these  books  were  not  in 
the  early  editions,  but  were  gradually  attached  as  a  supplement, 
as  in  Protestant  Bibles. 

2.  That  it  was  read  in  churches.     This  is  done  in  Protestant 
churches  also.     It  is  the  meaning  and  intention  with  which  it 
is  done  which  is  the  essential  feature.      This  is  pointed  out  by 
Jerome.     Green  183  f. 

3.  That  it  is  quoted  by  the  Fathers.     Green  (185-190)  proves 
that  the  quotations  are  not  made  so  as  to  show  they  are  from 
inspired  words — that  though  the  formula  "It  is  written"  is  used 
for  introducing  quotations  from  the  canon  and  the  Apocrypha, 
they  are  so  used  by  Origen,  Jerome  and  others  who  did  not  admit 
the  Apocrypha  into  the  canon,  and  that  the  use  of  the  word 
"Scripture"    or    "Prophet"    was   in    like    manner  applied  to 
both. 

In  his  Introductio  in  Sacram  Scripturam,  iii,  §  18,  pp.  49  f., 
Lamy  argues  in  favor  of  the  Apocrypha  on  the  ground  of  quota- 
tion by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  of  the  Septuagint,  which  con- 
tains the  Apocrypha.  He  maintains  that  the  New  Testament, 
writers  in  referring  to  the  witness  of  the  Old  Testament  seek  the 


APPENDIX  291 

sense  and  not  the  words,  and  that  many  passages  so  agree  with 
the  Apocrypha  that  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  they  referred 
to  those  passages,  the  mere  difference  in  words  not  being  an  ob- 
stacle. For  this  purpose  he  compares: 

Tob  4  16  with  Matt  7  12. 

II  Mace  6  19  with  Heb  11  35. 

Wisd  13  with  Rom  1  17-31. 

Wisd  7  26  with  Heb  1  3. 

Ecclus  24  29  with  Jno  6  35. 

Ecclus  35  11  with  II  Cor  9  7. 

5.  Published  in  Acta  et  Deer  eta  Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimorensis 
Tertii,  1884. 

6.  Ezr  4  8-6  18;  7  2-26;  Dan  2  4-7  28;  Jer  10  11.     Maclear  Helps 
to  the  Study  of  the  Bible  6. 

As  to  the  use  made  of  the  verse  in  Jeremiah  see  Cook  Com- 
mentary V.  391-392. 

7.  For  particulars  as  to  language,  see  Maclear  Helps  7.     The 
Bibliography  gives  full  particulars  of  all  manuscripts,  versions, 
and  quotations  with  extracts  from  standard  authors  as  to  their 
purport.     References  are  there  given  for  all  facts,  and  it  is  un- 
necessary to  repeat  them. 

8.  The  facts  as  to  the  Hebrew  alphabet  will  be  found  in  Smyth 
The  Old  Documents  and  the  New  Bible  7  f. 

9.  For  particulars  of  the  work  of  the  Massoretes   see  Green 
General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament—  The  Text  142  f .,  Kirk- 
patrick  The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testament  73  f. 

10.  See  Bibliography  for  list  of  books  forming  the  authority 
for  statements  made  in  this  chapter. 

11.  Particulars  as  to  the  Vulgate  and  the  sources  on  which 
Jerome  founded  his  work  will  be  found  in  the  Bibliography. 

12.  "For  more  than  a  thousand  years  it  (the  Vulgate)  was  the 
parent  of  every  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  Western  Europe." 
Smyth  Old  Documents  171. 

13.  The  facts  and  quotations  as  to  the  editions  of  the  Vulgate 
are  from  Scrivener    Introduction   to  the  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament  II.  65. 

14.  The  Vatican  decree  will  be  found  in  the  printed  reports  of 


292  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

the  Council  and  is  in  the  following  words:  "  Veteris  et  Novi  Testa- 
ment! libri  integri  cum  omnibus  suis  partibus  prout  in  ejusdem 
Concilii  decreta  recensentur,  et  in  veteri  vulgata  Latina  editione 
habentur,  pro  sacris  et  canonicis  suscipiendi  sunt.  Eos  vero 
Ecclesia  pro  sacris  et  canonicis  habet  non  ideo  quod  sola  humana 
industria  concinnati,  sua  deinde  auctoritate  sunt  approbati,  nee 
ideo  dumtaxat,  quod  revelationem  sine  errore  contineant,  sed 
propterea  quod  Spiritu  Sancto  inspirante  conscripti  Deum  habent 
auctorem,  atque  ut  tales  ipsi  Ecclesise  traditi  sint. "  (Translation. ) 
"The  complete  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  with  all 
their  parts,  as  they  are  received  in  the  decrees  of  the  same  Council 
(Trent)  and  contained  in  the  Old  Latin  Vulgate  edition,  must  be 
received  as  sacred  and  canonical.  The  Church  moreover  holds 
these  books  as  sacred  and  canonical  not  only  because  collected  by 
man's  industry,  since  they  have  been  approved  by  its  authority, 
nor  for  the  reason  only  that  they  contain  revelation  without 
error,  but  because,  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  col- 
lections have  God  as  their  author,  and  as  such  the  Churches  have 
handed  them  down." 

15.  The  decree  of  the  Second  Council  of  Baltimore  will  be  found 
in  Acta  et  Decreta  Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimorensis  Secundi,  1866. 
The  words  of  the  decree  Titulus  I,  par.  16,  of  which  a  translation 
is  given  in  the  Essay  are:  "Nonnisi  exprobatis  versionibus  atque 
editionibus  verbi  Dei  pabulum  incorruptum  illis  desumere.     Sta- 
tuimus  igitur  ut  Duacensis  versio,   qua3  in  omnibus  ecclesiis 
quarum  fideles  Anglice  loquuntur  recepta,  et  a  predecessoribus 
nostris  fidelium  merito  proposita  est,  omnino  retineatur.     Cura- 
bunt  autem  episcopi  ut,  jus  ita  exemplar  probatissimum  ab  ipsis 
designandum,  omnes  turn  novi  turn  veteris  Testament!  Duacensis 
versionis  editiones  in  posterum  emendatissime  fiant,  cum  adnota- 
tionibus  quas  ex  sanctis  EcclesiaB  Patribus  vel  doctis  catholicisque 
viris  tantum  desumptae  sint." 

16.  A  eta  et  Decreta  Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimorensis  Tertii,  1884. 
The  statement  as  to  an  authorized  version  is  as  follows: 

No.  VII.  "In  eadem  congregatione  privata,  quidam  e  Pa- 
tribus Concilii  sumnopere  exoptavit  ut  habeatur  authentica, 
quoeque  omnium  votis  respondeat,  Anglica  Scripturae  Sacra 


APPENDIX  293 

Versio.  Responsum  est  ei,  hoc  in  Concilio  Plenario  superior! 
prepositum  fuisse,  diuque  de  ejus  mode  versione  deliberasse 
Patres,  sed  nihil  effectum  fuisse.  Rejecta  tamen  fuit  a  Patribus, 
agentibus  viginti  et  octo,  negantibus  octo  supra  triginta." 
(Translation.)  "In  the  same  private  congregation,  one  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Council  urgently  wished  that  an  English  Version  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  considered  authentic  which  would 
be  agreeable  to  the  opinions  of  all.  Answer  was  made  to  this, 
that  it  had  been  placed  before  the  former  Plenary  Council,  and 
the  Fathers  had  discussed  a  version  of  this  character  at  length, 
but  nothing  had  been  done.  The  suggestion  was  however  re- 
jected by  the  Fathers  28  for  and  38  against  it." 

Titulus  I,  No.  167  deals  with  the  use  of  the  Vulgate  in  discus- 
sion. "  In  exegesi  Biblica  pro  textu  explicando  adhibeatur  versio 
Vulgata  latina,  ut  ilia  clericus  omnino  familiaris  evadet,  quam 
Cone.  Trident,  in  publicis  lecturibus,  disputationibus  et  prce- 
dicationibus  pro  authentica  habendum  esse  statuit  et  declar- 
avit."  (Translation.)  "In  Biblical  discussion  for  explaining 
the  text  the  Vulgate  Latin  Version  should  be  adhered  to,  as  that 
is  altogether  familiar  to  the  clergy  and  is  that  which  the  Council 
of  Trent  has  ordained  and  declared  should  be  used  by  authority 
in  public  reading,  in  arguments  and  proclamations." 

17.  Mombert  English  Versions  of  the  Bible  293.     For  the  other 
facts  and  quotations  as  to  the  translators,  see  Mombert  293  f . ; 
also  Moulton  History  of  the  English  Bible  182  f.;  Newman  Tracts 
Theological  and  Ecclesiastical,  Vol.  Ill,  No.  7  "History  of  the 
Text  of  the  Rheims  and  Douay  Version  of  Scripture." 

18.  The  approbations  (copied  from  the  original  edition  in  the 
General  Theological  Seminary,  New  York)  are  as  follows:  "Ap- 
probatio:    Nos  infra  scripti,  in  alma  Duacensi  universitate  Sacrae 
Theologia3  Doctores  et  Professores,  hanc  Anglicanam  Veteris  Tes- 
tamenti  translationem,  quam  tres  diversi  ejus  nationis  eruditis- 
simi  Theologi  non  solum  fidelem,   sed  propter  diversa  quae   ei 
sunt  adjuncta,  valde  utilem  fidei  Catholicae  propaganda?  ac  tuen- 
dae,  et  bonis  moribus  promovendis,  sunt  testati,  quorum  testi- 
monia  ipsorum  syngraphis  munita  vidimus;  cujus  item  Transla- 
tionis  et  Annotationum  auctores  nobis  de  fidei  integritate  et 


294  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

eruditionis  prcestantia  probe  sunt  noti ;  his  rebus  adducti  et  nixi 
fructuose  evulgari  posse  censuimus  Duaci  8  Novembris  1609. 
"  Professors  at  Douay. 

"  GUIELMUS  ESTIUS,  Sacrse  Theologiss  Doctor, 

"  BARTHOLOM^EUS  PETRUS,  Sacrse  Theologise  Doctor, 

"  GEORGIUS  COLVENERUIS,  Sacrae  Theologies  Doctor." 
(Translation.}  "We  whose  names  are  written  below,  Doctors 
and  Professors  in  the  University  of  Sacred  Theology  at  Douay, 
are  of  opinion  that  this  English  Translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  three  several  most  learned  Theologians  of  that 
nation  have  borne  witness  to,  not  only  as  faithful,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  special  properties  which  belong  to  it,  exceedingly 
useful  for  propagating  and  preserving  the  Catholic  Faith,  and  for 
the  increase  of  good  morals,  should  be  advantageously  published, 
whose  testimony  we  have  seen  proved  by  their  signatures,  of 
which  translation  and  Annotations  moreover  the  authors  are 
known  to  us  by  the  integrity  of  their  faith  and  the  eminence  of 
their  learning." 

The  Censure  and  Approbation  of  the  New  Testament.  "Cum 
hujus  versionis  ac  ceditionis  authores  nobis  de  fide  et  eruditione 
sint  probe  cogniti,  aliique  S.  Theologia?  et  linguae  Anglican® 
peritissimi  viri  contestati  sint,  nihil  in  hoc  opere  reperiri,  quod 
non  sit  Catholice  Ecclesie  doctrinse  et  pietate  consentaneum  vel 
quod  ullo  modo  potestate  ac  pace  ciuli  repugnet  sed  omnia  potius 
veram  fidem,  Reip.  bonum,  vitaeque  ac  morum  probitatem  provo 
mere;  ex  ipsorium  fide  censemus  esta  utiliter  excudi  et  publicari 
posse.  [NO  DATE.] 

"  PETRUS  REMIGUS,  [Vicar-General  of  Abp.  of  Rheims]. 

"  HUBERTUS  MORUS,  [Professor  of  Theology  at  Rheims]. 

"  JOHANNES  LE  BESQUE,  [Professor  of  Theology  at  Rheims]. 

"  GUIELMUS  BALBUS,  [Professor  of  Theology  at  Rheims]." 
(Translation.)  "Since  the  authors  of  this  version  and  edition 
are  favorably  known  to  us  on  account  of  their  faith  and  learning, 
and  others  of  the  Sacred  College  and  of  the  English  language  have 
borne  witness  to  them  as  most  accomplished  men,  nothing  is 
found  in  this  work  which  is  not  consistent  with  the  doctrine  and 
pious  belief  of  the  Catholic  Church,  or  which  is  opposed  in  any 


APPENDIX  295 

way  to  the  civil  power  and  peace,  but  promotes  rather  the  true 
faith,  the  good  of  the  State  and  probity  of  life  and  morals,  we 
consider  that  it  has  been  usefully  composed  and  might  be  pub- 
lished." 

19.  Bishop  Troy's  approbation  of  MacMahon's  version  is  as 
follows:  "  By  our  authority  we  appro ve  the  new  English  edition  of 
the  Holy  Bible  .  .  .  which  has  by  our  order  been  carefully  col- 
lated by  the  Rev.  Bernard  MacMahon  with  the  Clementine  Vul- 
gate, also  with  the  Douay  Old  Testament  of  1609,  and  the  Rheims 
New  Testament  of  1582,  and  with  the  London  Old  and  New 
Testaments   of   1752,   approved    English   versions."     Newman 
Traces  429. 

The  details  of  all  editions  are  given  in  the  Bibliography. 

20.  It  can  be  affirmed  and  proved  that  there  is  no  published 
copy  of  the  whole  Bible  in  English  prior  to  Wyclif.     Mombert 
English  Versions  28. 

21.  For  examination  of  the  authorship  of  Wyclif's  version  see 
Forshall  and  Madden  Preface  to  Wyclif's  Bible  and  Mombert 
English  Versions  69. 

22.  Convocation  in  1408  ordered  that  no  one  read  any  book  of 
Wyclif's  until  the  translation  had  been  approved  by  the  ordinary 
on  pain  of  excommunication.     Westcott-Wright  General  View  of 
the  History  of  the  Bible  22  f . 

23.  The  quotation  from  Foxe  will  be  found  in  Acts  and  Monu- 
ments IV.  217,  as  quoted  by  Westcott  General  View  26. 

24.  See  list  of  Hebrew  Bibles  in  Bibliography. 

25.  Wolsey  founded  in  1519  a  chair  of  Greek.     Westcott  Gen- 
eral View  165. 

The  following  grammars  and  lexicons  are  mentioned  by  West- 
cott 166:  Grammar  of  Lascaris  (Milan,  1476);  Grammar  of 
Clenardus  (Louvain,  1530);  Lexicon  of  Craston  (1480).  [Re- 
published  by  Aldus  ( 1 497 ) .] ;  Lexicon  of  Guarino. 

26.  The  sermon  was  preached  by  the  Vicar  of  Croydon.     See 
Foxe  Acts  and  Monuments  I.  927. 

27.  For  list  of  Bibles  in  European  languages,  see  Bibliography. 

28.  For  particulars  of  Tyndale's  Imprisonment,  trial  and  mar- 
tyrdom, see  his  life  by  Demaus,  xiii. 


296  BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 

29.  The  quotation  is  from  Westcott  General  View  64. 

30.  "Coverdale  wherever  he  worked  was  encouraged,  if  not  em- 
ployed, by  Cromwell  in  the  translation  of  the  Bible  and  it  would 
seem  from  a  letter  without  date  (assigned  to  1527  or  1532)  that 
Sir  Thomas  More   was   aware  of   his   occupation."      Mombert 
English  Versions  150.     Westcott  General  View  70,  agrees  with 
this.     For  facts  as  to  Coverdale's  life  see  Mombert  159,  161. 

31.  Letter  from  Cranmer  to  Cromwell   quoted  by  Westcott 
General  View  92. 

32.  Westcott  General  View  271. 

33.  Particulars    from  Mombert  English   Versions  201,    210, 
220,  and  quotation  203. 

34.  For  further  particulars  of  the  history  of  the  Bible  during 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII  and  his  successors  and  of  the  Genevan 
Bible  see  Moulton  History  150-168;  Mombert  English  Versions 
233-265;  Westcott  General  View  120-121. 

35.  The  helps  at  the  command  of  the  Genevan  Revisers  as  given 
by  Mombert  English   Versions  249,  were,   in   addition  to   the 
Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin  Bibles  mentioned  in  the  Bibliography, 
and  published  previous  to  1557,  Pellican's  Hebrew  Grammar, 
1503;  Reuchlin's  Dictionary,  1506;  Miinster's  Grammar,  1525. 

36.  See  Mombert  English  Versions  265  as  to  the  circulation  of 
the  Great  Bible  and  the  Genevan  Bible  and  275  as  to  edi- 
tions. 

37.  The  second  edition  was  taken  as  the  basis  of  the  Authorized 
Version.     Westcott  General  View  316. 

38.  The  following  quotation  from  Mombert  English  Versions 
362  f.  gives  some  particulars  of  the  various  editions:    "Not  less 
than  50  had  been  issued  before  1640  by  Barker  (Printer  to  the 
King's  Most  Excellent  Majesty)  and  his  successors.     The  edition 
of  1613  contains  412  variations.     That  of  1616  may  be  regarded 
as  the  first  revision,  that  of  1629  and  1638  are  the  first  Cambridge 
editions  revised  and  a  number  of  their  errata  have  been  trans- 
mitted to  modern  times.  .  .  .  That  of  1660  by  Hills  and  Field 
introduced  additional  notes  improved  upon  in  John  Hayes,  Cam- 
bridge,  1677.     1701  brought  the  dates  and  index  by  Bishop 
Lloyd.     1762  is  the  famous  edition  of  Dr.  Paris." 


APPENDIX  297 

39.  Critical  apparatus  (in  addition  to  those  mentioned  for  the 
Genevan  Bible)  at  disposal  of  Compilers  of  Authorized  Version: 

(1)  The  Latin  translations  mentioned  in  the  Bibliography. 

(2)  The  French,  Italian  and  Spanish  editions,  mentioned  in  the 
Bibliography.     [These  are  doubtless  what  the  Revisers  refer  to 
when  they  speak  of  their  pains  in  consulting  Spanish,  French 
and  Italian  translations.      Westcott  General   View  355,   356.] 

(3)  Buxtorf's  Lexicon,  1607,  Hebrew  Grammar,  1609.     Mombert 
English  Versions  387. 

"They  had  the  bare  Hebrew  text  without  more  light  shed  on 
it  by  the  ancient  versions  except  that  derived  from  such  editions 
of  the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate,  as  were  then  circulating,  the 
Sixtine  edition  of  1587,  being  the  latest  of  the  former  and  the  Six- 
tine  (1590)  and  Clementine  (1592-1593)  editions  the  latest  of  the 
latter  version.  The  Chaldee  Paraphrase  of  Onkelos  (1482-1546, 
1590)  was  also  available  to  them,  but  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch, 
the  Syriac  and  Arabic  versions  and  the  fragmentary  Ethiopia 
and  Persian  translations  were  unknown  to  them.  For  the  Greek 
text  of  the  New  Testament  they  had  the  various  editions  of  Beza 
from  1560  to  1598  and  the  fifth  edition  of  Beza  1598,  is  probably 
what  they  used,  as  well  as  the  3rd  edition  of  Stephanus  1550-1551, 
they  likewise  consulted  the  Complutensian  Polyglot  1514,  the  dif- 
ferent editions  of  Erasmus  1516-1535,  Aldus  1518,  Colinaeus 
1534,  Planten  1572,  the  Vulgate  and  Beza's  Lathi  version  of 
1556. 

"The  common  statement  is  that  the  Greek  text  of  the  Author- 
ized Version  of  1611  agrees  in  81  places  with  Beza  against  Ste- 
phanus, in  about  21  with  Stephanus  against  Beza,  and  that  hi 
29  places  the  translators  followed  the  Complutensian,  Erasmus  or 
the  Vulgate. "  Mombert  387,  388. 

For  critical  apparatus  for  Revision  hi  1870  see  Bibliography. 
Also  the  references  given  above. 

40.  Mombert  English  Versions  69. 

41.  The  exact  wording  of  the  texts  referred  to  and  of  others 
which  owe  their  origin  to  Wyclif  is  as  follows.     [Modern  spelling 
is  adopted  in  this  and  similar  quotations.] 


298  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

WYCLIP  AMERICAN  REVISED   VERSION 

Matt  7  14 

Strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow          Narrow    is     the    gate    and 
the  way.  straitened  the  way. 

Matt  16  22 
Far  be  it  from  thee  Lord.  Be  it  far  from  thee  Lord. 

JnoS  3 

If    a    man    shall    be    born          Except  one  be  born  anew, 
again. 

Rom  12  1 

A  living  sacrifice.  A  living  sacrifice. 

I  Cor  2  10 
The  deep  things  of  God.  The  deep  things  of  God. 

/  Cor  10  16 

The  cup  of   blessing  which         The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless.  we  bless. 

Jas  1  5 

And  if  any  of  you  needeth          But  if  any  of  you  lacketh 
wisdom,  ask  he  of  God  which      wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God, 
giveth  to  all  men  largely  and      who  giveth  to  all  liberally  and 
upbraideth  not  and  it  shall  be      upbraideth  not. 
given  him. 

42.  The  extracts  are  from  the  following  authors  quoted  in  the 
order  named:     Marsh,  Lectures  in  English  Language,  1st  Series, 
627;  Westcott  General  View  210,  211;  Froude  History  of  Eng- 
land III.  84. 

43.  Westcott    General    View    210.      Mombert   English   Ver- 
sions 115  f.  gives  a  careful  argument  on  Tyndale's  knowledge  of 
Hebrew,  and  proves  his  case  by  a  collation  of  Luther  and  Tyn- 
dale  in  Deut  6  6-9,  and  states  that  "the  rendering  of  these  four 
verses  proves  an  independent  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin, 
German   and  English."     He  gives  specific  instances  to  prove 


APPENDIX  29$ 

this  and  gives  the  following  list  of  helps  available  to  Tyndale: 
The  Hebrew  Bible  (Soncino,  1488,  Brescia,  1494);  Bomberg's 
Bible  published  in  1518;  Rabbinical  Bible  published  in  1519 
and  1525;  Pellican's  Hebrew  Grammar,  1503;  Reuchlin's  Dic- 
tionary in  1506;  Miinster's  Grammar,  1525;  Complutensian 
Polyglot  with  a  Hebrew  Grammar  and  Lectionary,  1517-1520. 


300 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


II 


si  si!? I 


i 

?1 

S 


IJi    a 
si    I 

§  *  OJ       . 

is  »-5 


I 


cast 
ce. 


ey 
bu 


5  d 

<  ja  o 

f|  ,1 

<    ^  ,        V)           —I 


£« 


I 

Ii 

H      *o 

e 

1 
a 

I 


S  5 

3   § 

P      13 


PllIII 

5    VvVV  M 


5  I 


s 

SI 


APPENDIX 


301 


AM.  R. 

iw  much  more 
heavenly  Fat 
the  Holy  Spiri 
that  ask  him. 


o  . 

•=8 

cl 

II 

&l 

n 


m 

53 


<-d~  > 

5§f| 

lib 
s^s 
=M- 

1*5 13 


5  s 


§ 

c  >. 


•  * 

£s 

i& 

£| 


fcss    ^ 


9  H 

°  •£ 


-  IlilS  -  1 


Is 

11 

^      g           ] 

V 

:  i 

1* 
S  «3 

i! 

CO 

L 

i! 

Mis 

So 

*l 

•I 

11 

fl 

Eiii 
i|i 

fa 

*»ja 

J3+J 

J! 

fij 

I1 

C  w 

8i 

*»  "** 

f2 

ills 


^1 

II 
si 


s 

s  03 


ll 


302  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


$   S 
I  I 

X!        & 


-      a    M   K2  s»n      «  « 

TJSSS    .§    •'    £0     >,£!     eg     £>£ 

^|    c    |    S^d6-    S£    l5j§ 

5«i  ^  :3  a»g£3  ^5  «^3 

S 


a  a  Ici^oll  fiiifilll'Sft^  g«| 

-i-^i!  lnlf!si:«h! 

•^  j>       +j       £3*0  -^-^ 

5    3?  I  Si-s 

fl  X        fl        O  ..       *a 


Sg  5S^§g^sa 

SXSrJ  S5"-1  C  g  «  cda-r;,r- 

j  |  ni^.  ^ris  rnirT 

-I  :  Si:ss 


2 
I  I.  II  «1 


^  1§  ^ 


SI    a      S          Sg|    |l"la    « 

A*  lfial  till!  I 

§§         §83   -n«^l3ti^3S2^   gs 

1ls  I5itllo!&l  -S« 


a 

a 


APPENDIX 


303 


304  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

48.  Westcott  General  View  212,  and  Mombert  English  Ver- 
sions 163,  both  agree  that  Coverdale's  cannot  be  called  an  inde- 
pendent translation.     These  words  omitted  by  Tyndale  are  given 
by  Westcott  220. 

49.  Westcott    General    View  217,   220.      Mombert    English 
Versions  164-167  has  collated  Mai  4,  as  translated  by  Coverdale, 
with  Luther,  the  Zurich,  the  Worms  edition  of  Peter  Schafer 
(1528)  and  the  Combination  Bible  of  Wolff  Kopphl,  with  the 
result  that  there  is  hardly  a  word  that  cannot  be  referred  to  one 
or  more  of  them.     Collations  by  other  authors  show  that  Cover- 
dale  "set  great  store  by  many  translations,  deeming  them  highly 
advantageous  and  carrying  his  eclecticism  into  his  own  trans- 
lation."    Mombert  168.     He  "availed  himself  freely  of  the  work 
of  Tyndale  as  far  as  it  was  published,"  i.e.,  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  book  of  Jonah  at  the  date  of  the  1st  edition. 

50.  Mombert  English  Versions  184. 

51.  "The  Great  Bible  is  a  revision  of  Tyndale,  Matthew  and 
Coverdale  by  the  original  with  the  help  of  Luther's  version,  the 
Zurich  version,  as  well  as  the  Latin  translation  of  Sanctes  Pag- 
ninus  (1528),  and  Sebastian  Munster  (1534-1535)  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  Latin  Version  of  Erasmus  in  the  New;  the  text  of 
the  Great  Bible  of  1539  may  be  described  with  sufficient  accuracy 
as  a  revision  of  Matthew,  that  is  of  Tyndale,  Rogers  and  Cover- 
dale    by  Coverdale    himself."      Mombert    English     Versions 
209. 

"It  is  unquestionably  inferior  to  Matthew's  Bible  as  to  trans- 
lation." Mombert  222,  223.  See  also  Westcott  General  View 
300,  301. 

52.  American  Revised  Version,  Preface  to  the  New  Testament. 

53.  The  statement  as  to  the  "Massoretic  Text"  is  made  in  the 
English  Revised  Version,  Preface  to  the  Old  Testament. 

54.  The  Douay  Version  agrees  with  the  Revised  Version  in 
this  use  of  the  personal  pronoun. 

55.  English  Revised  Version,  Preface  to  the  New  Testament. 

56.  The  passage  in  Matt  6  13  is  not  found  in  Codex  Sinai- 
ticus,  Codex  Vaticanus,  Codex  Bezae,  four  Cursive  MSS.,  the 
Vulgate,  the  Old  Latin,  nor  the  Memphitic  Version.     It  is  not 


APPENDIX  305 

noticed  in  expositions  on  the  Lord's  Prayer  by  Origen  254  A.D., 
Tertullian  200  A.D.,  nor  Cyprian  248  A.D. 

It  is  found  in  some  MSS.  (in  red  ink  or  in  the  margin,  to  distin- 
guish it  from  the  text),  in  Codex  Rossanensis,  the  Ethiopia 
Version,  the  Armenian  Version,  the  Gothic  Version,  the  Syriac 
Version,  and  is  given  by  Chrysostom,  397  A.D. 

The  details  as  to  the  New  Testament  Revision  are  based  on 
criticisms  by  Mombert  English  Versions  462  f. 

57.  I  Tim  3  16,  in  the  Authorized  Version  reads:  "And  without 
controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness:  God  was  manifest 
in  the  flesh."  The  Revised  Version  reads:  " He  who  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh,"  and  gives  this  note:  "The  word  'God'  in  place 
of  'He  who'  rests  on  no  sufficient  ancient  evidence.  Some  an- 
cient authorities  read  'which.'" 

The  Douay  Version  adopts  the  latter  reading,  "which  was  mani- 
fested in  the  flesh."  The  words  "He  who"  are  found  in  Codex 
Sinaiticus,  Codex  Ephremis,  Memphitic  and  Thebaic  Versions. 
The  word  "God"  is  found  in  Codex  Alexandrinus. 

Some  of  the  alterations  required  by  change  of  reading  in  the 
Greek  text  are: 


306 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


APPENDIX 


307 


sills  S 


II 


s 

s       .    I 

I  .dl  s 


>> 

73 
o 

II 

rl 


13 


& 


Q 

K 

Efc 

«i 

KS 

l> 


a  a 

W  S3 
O  W 


Illllll 


I'  • 

i  -1-      I       S 

1-111     ll|,  II 

ijHltll'a.sllgSlSi 


3.2££g£.S 


f    | 
1    I . 


u« 


»b   *5 

SO         *H    ° 

•SS     °W 


5-g»^-2 

liliillllltlillillilli 


308 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


O5 

<N 

I 

bJO 

I 


1 

T3 

0 

r^ 

d 

0) 

aT 

o3 

Pi 

• 

| 

xt  schedul 

& 

1 
S 

REVISED  V 

bl/?fil 

§,5§o  2  §^ 

Illllsl 

§ 

o 

T3 

• 

B 

d 

1 

EH 

.2    X 

Xj     c3 


03      M 

19 
i  i 

o  •£ 


he 


1 

53 

.S 

5, 

S 

•8 

H3 

Q 

P 

1 

1 

*B 

o 

1 

a 

a 
8 
1 

i 

1 

^ 
a 

SE  ORIGINAL  ANI 
DOUAY  VER: 

allegory, 
anathema, 
eunuchs. 
Euro-aquil 
Tetrarch. 
Thrones. 
Pentecost. 

0 

2 

1 

g 

•8 

•       <«"    5       8 

b  g 

rt     ft       5 

§  > 

2    I      * 

o  "Sb 

9  r    1 

«   d 

a 

-S  5     1. 

el 

2^: 

11 

w 

ill!  II 

•S    Ss    2      ^° 

s  ^ 

1-3 
S  1 

j> 

I  .SI  SdjEig 

^'a   2r<S«o§2 

1  If  £!& 

^0»S      C3      «M      -0 

Is 

•sl 
o  ® 

.S    bC 

o3     C 

S       °            0 

•^  *3 

:  *  I 

£  i 

03 

§o 

1  Jl  1 

.2  S 

K    M 

B  <» 

U          43^           » 

+*       co«^      J4           |5 

CQ       ^) 

C  PH 

1? 

1  II  i  I! 

>  H 

WS 

-S     o^    «     1-3 

^fl 

ei 

p 

!JiH 

£"SiSS      08      efli-i      -d 

S   2 

*! 
15 

bJO    ® 

"C   "> 

•s     s 

:a 

o         Ci 

I     •S 

a   s 


£  *%  gS 

03  S  Sg 

r  fc  S> 

II  *g 

1 1  fii 

o^ 


catech 

rom  Cl 
ate  the  si 


zed 
s. 
ted 
itia 


Ills  5-dloTif 

o 2g o  S oiiflo2 

sill  i6"18"0 

S-o  bB  ce 


• 


a 

*I 


lals 


1.SJ 


£^    S 


APPENDIX  309 


•s, 


fl 


«B     s:   ts   " «  Is     * 


310  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


gi 

PH  % 


£££ 


S>          1 

1  111 


«3«£.2§>  ^5g«^ 

fc82>>S  g!4^ 

^OcS^M  cS^C^ 

iSa°5  ,^§.0 


?s  list 


IBS!  ifeiisiPi:! 

5g^§  Ill^Oa^ 

aM|g 

«23£>  ^89^blifsSl 

H  «  5wS      S 


2^ 

OQ 
• 


APPENDIX  311 

59.  Nine  passages  quoted  by  Ward  (Errata  of  the  Protestant 
Bible  18-66)  are  as  follows: 

REFERENCE  TO  ALTERATION  IN  REVISED  VERSION  WHICH 

PASSAGE  REMOVES  OBJECTION 

Prov  9:5.  The  use  of  the  word  "ye," 

I  Cor  11:27.  The  use  of  the  word  "or"  for  "and." 

Acts  20:28.  "Bishops"  for  "overseers." 

I  Cor  9:5.    )  Quoted  as  opposing  the  celibacy  of  the  pflfest,  but 

Phil  4:3.      £  the  passage  from    Hebrews   being   now   exactly 

Heb  13 -4.   )  what  Ward  wants,  the  argument  falls. 

Heb  5:7.     '  "having  been  heard  for  his  godly  fear"  for  "was 

heard  In  that  he  feared." 

Heb  10-29.  "judged"  for  "thought." 

Col  1:23.  Omission  of  the  word  "and." 

60.  Passages  altered  in  the  modern  Douay  to  agree  with  Re- 
vised Version  on  the  points  objected  to  by  Ward  Errata,  18  f : 
Matt  1  25;  II  Pet  1  15;  Rom  8  18;  Heb  2  9;  Matt  19  n;  Rom  4  3; 
IPetl  25;Jas46. 

61.  Passages  in  which  the  Douay  and  Revised  Versions  agree: 
Jas  516;  Heb  1022;  Lk  1842;  Rom  5  6,  "we  were  weak";  I  Cor 
9  13  and  I  Cor  1018  (use  of  word  "altar");  I  Cor  1020  and  Heb 
13  16  (use  of  word  "sacrifice") ;  and  I  Pet  2  5. 

62.  The  passages  referred  to  are  as  follows: 

AGREEING  EXACTLY  ALTERED  IN  DOUAY  VERSION 

WITH  THE  SO  AS  TO  BE  MADE 

REVISED  VERSION  INTELLIGIBLE 

Quoted  by  Westcott  General  View  331. 
Mk  5:35.  Ps  19:9. 

Rom  6:13,  8:18. 
Heb  13:16 
Quoted  by  Mombert  English  Versions  303  f. 

Lk  22:18.  Matt  27:62. 

Jno  6:45,  7:2  Mk  15:46. 

Acts  23:14.  Lk  22:7,   12. 

Rom  1:30,  2:25.  Jno  2:4. 

Gal  5:21.  Acts  1:2. 

Eph  2:6,  4:30.  Eph  3:6. 

Heb  3:13,  9:3.  Phil  3:10. 

IUJno  9.  IITh3:8. 

Rev  1:10,  21:6,  22:2,  22:14.  I  Tim  3:6,  5:6. 

II  Tim  1:14,  4:4. 

Phlm  6. 

Heb  2:17,  3:15,  4:10,  9:23,  10:lfi, 
12:2. 

Jas  1:17.  3:4. 

I  Pet  1:14,  4:12. 

II  Pet  2:13. 
Jude  4:  19. 
Rev  1:15,  10:7. 

Quoted  by  Hoare  The  Evolution  of  the  English  Bible  209  f. 


312  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

63.  The  collated  passages  are  those  referred  to  in  different 
parts  of  the  Essay  and  other  passages  collated  by  the  author. 

64.  Westcott   General   View  352,  353,  gives  certain  passages 
in  Romans  as  common  to  the  original  Douay  and  Authorized 
Versions  alone  and  adds  "it  is  impossible  that  the  coincidences 
have  been  accidental." 

We  give  here  such  of  these  passages  as  are  identical  in  the  mod- 
ern Douay  and  the  Revised  Version  as  deriving  their  origin  from 
the  original  Douay.  Any  differences  that  exist  are  noted. 

1  10.     if  by  any  means. 

13.     I  would  not  have  you  ignorant. 

23.     changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God. 

2  5.     revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God. 

The  Douay  Version  has  "just"  instead  of  "righteous." 
10.     glory,  honour  and  peace  to  every  man  that  worketh 
good. 

Douay,  "one"  for  "man." 

13.     for  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God. 
15.     the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts. 

3  7.     why  am  I  also  still  judged  as  a  sinner. 

Douay,  "yet"  for  "still." 
5  3.     And  not  only  so  but  we  also  rejoice  in  our  tribulations. 

Douay,  "glory"  instead  of  "rejoice." 
10  10.     With  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation. 

12  16.     Be  not  wise  in  your  own  conceits. 

13  8.     Owe  no  man  anything. 

14  9.     For  to  this  end  Christ  died. 

Ten  words  identical  in  the  Douay  and  Authorized  Versions 
stated  by  Westcott  334  as  owing  their  origin  to  the  original 
Douay  Version. 
Rom  1  i.     separated. 

32.     consent. 
2  5.     impenitent. 
18.     approvest. 
3  25.     propitiation 

4  4.     grace. 

5  8.     commendeth. 


APPENDIX  313 

8  18.     revealed. 

19.     expectation. 
15  26.     contribution. 

65.  The  following  passages  from  1  John  are  identical  (except 
where  otherwise  noted)  in  the  modern  Douay  and  the  Revised 
Versions,  and  derive  their  origin  from  the  original  Douay  Version. 

1  9.     If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  for- 
give us  our  sins  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness. 

Douay,  "just"  for  "righteous,"  "iniquity"  for  "unright- 
eousness." 

10.  If  we  say  that  we  have  not  sinned,  we  make  him  a  liar 
and  his  word  is  not  in  us. 

4  10.     and  sent  His  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. 
Douay,  "a"  for  "the." 

2  17.     He  that  doeth  the  will  of  God  abideth  for  ever. 

3  15.     Whosoever  hateth  his  brother  is  a  murderer. 

66.  The  quotation  is  from  the  English  Revised  Version,  Preface 
to  the  New  Testament. 

67.  The  CEcumenical  Council  of  the  Vatican  held  April  24, 
1870,  says  on  this  point  (Caput  II): 

"Haec  porro  supernaturalis  revelatio,  secundum  universalis 
Ecclesiae  fidem  a  sancta  Tridentina  Synodo  declaratam,  contine- 
tur  in  libris  scriptiset  sine  traditionibus  qua?  ipsius  Christi  ore  ab 
Apostolis  acceptae,  aut  at  ipsis  Apostolis  Spiritu  Sancto  dictanto 
quasi  per  manus  tradita?  ad  nos  usque  pervenerunt."  (Trans- 
lation.) "Further  this  supernatural  revelation  according  to  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  declared  by  Holy  Council  of  Trent 
is  contained  in  written  books  and  without  writing  in  the  tradi- 
tions which  were  received  by  the  Apostles  from  the  mouth  of 
Christ  Himself,  or  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  Apostles  them- 
selves at  the  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  given  by  their  hands." 

Waterworth  Faith  of  Catholics  I.  334  f.  says: 

Proposition  LX.  "As  the  Church  assuredly  tells  us  what  par- 
ticular book  is  the  Word  of  God,  so  can  she  with  the  like  assurance 
tell  us  the  true  sense  and  meaning  of  it  in  controverted  points  of 
faith."  This  view  is  held  by  all  Catholic  writers.  See  also  The 
Catholic  Controversy  149-157. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY1 

SELECTED  AND  COMPILED  FROM  THE  SOURCES  EMPLOYED  BY 
MESSRS.  WHITLEY,  BEARD,  AND  DALTON 

PART  I 

A. — SOURCES  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS. 
B. — PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  GREEK  AND  HEBREW  SCRIP- 
TURES AND  THE  LATIN  VULGATE. 

C. — ENGLISH  VERSIONS  ANTEDATING  THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION. 
D. — SOME  IMPORTANT  CONTINENTAL  VERSIONS. 
E. — STANDARD  CATHOLIC  VERSIONS. 
F. — THE  ENGLISH  AUTHORIZED  AND  REVISED  VERSIONS. 

PART  I 

A.— SOURCES  OF  THE  TEXT 

SECTION  I 
(7)  Hebrew  Manuscripts  of  the  Old  Testament  * 

The  Hebrew  MSS  are  of  two  classes:  those  for  use  in  the 
synagogues  are  written  on  parchment  or  leather  rolls  and  con- 
tain the  unpointed  or  consonantal  text  only.  Manuscripts  for 
private  use  are  usually  hi  book  shape  and  contain  the  pointed 

1  Material  furnished  by  Messrs.  Whitley,  Beard,  and  Dal  ton  respectively, 
is  indicated  in  the  Bibliography  by  their  initials. 

2  See   Green    Introduction    to    O  T    Text   74f.;    Kirkpatrick   The  Divine 
Library  of  the  O  T  56f.;   Maclear  Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible  llf.;  and 
Copinger  The   Bible   and  its    Transmission  for   the  particulars  given  in 
Part  I.  (D.) 

317 


318 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


or  vocalized  text.  The  Heb.  MSS  mentioned  below,  except  Nos. 
1,  2,  and  7,  are  those  given  by  Green  Text  80-81.  The  particu- 
lars of  the  manuscripts  numbered  1,  2,  7,  are  from  Copinger. 
The  quotations  are  from  Green. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


1.  856  A.D. 

2.  The  9th  cent. 

3.  843  and  881  A.D. 

4.  895  A.D. 

5.  Latter  half  of  10th  cent. 

6.  916  A.D. 

7.  The  10th  cent.  (?) 


8.  1018  or  1019  A.D. 

9.  1106  A.D 

10.  Uncertain  date. 

11. 


12.  1227  A.D. 


A  manuscript,  in  the  Cambridge  University 
Library.  (D.) 

A  codex  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  British 
Museum.  (D.) 

Fragments  of  the  Pentateuch,  at  Odessa.    (D.) 

A  copy  of  the  Prophets  (by  Moses  ben  Asher  ?) 
in  the  Karaite  Synagogue  at  Cairo.  (D.) 

Codex  ben  Asher.  "  Is  reported  to  be  at  Alep- 
po." (D.) 

Codex  Babylonicus,  in  the  Imperial  Library 
St.  Petersburg.  (D.) 

Codex  Laudianus  containing  the  whole  O  T, 
except  part  of  Genesis.  This  MS,  though 
thus  dated,  is  held  by  Ginsburg,  Stein- 
schneider  and  others  to  belong  to  the  13th 
cent.  (D.) 

The  oldest  known  MS  in  the  care  of  the  Samar- 
itans, in  the  Hebrew  language,  but  in  the 
old  style  of  writing,  now  known  as  Samar- 
itan, containing  only  the  Law.  See  Ken- 
yon  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts 
47  (W.) 

Codex  Csesareus.  The  Prophets  and  Hagio- 
grapha,  in  the  Imperial  Library,  Vienna. 

(D.) 

Codex  Carlsruhensis  contains  the  Prophets,  at 
Carlsruhe.  (D.) 

A  manuscript  of  the  latter  Prophets  put  by 
some  in  the  6th,  by  others  in  the  15th  cent. 

(D.) 

Fragments  of  the  Pentateuch  dated  489  A.D. 
and  639  A.D.  and  other  MSS  of  the  8th,  9th, 
and  10th  cents,  are  in  the  Imperial  Library, 
St.  Petersburg.  The  total  number  of  man- 
uscripts is  given  in  Copinger  Transmis- 
sion 4  as  1346. 

A  triglot  MS  made  by  the  Samaritans,  con- 
taining (a)  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Law,  (b) 
an  Arabic  version  made  1070  A. p.,  (c)  a  Sa- 
maritan version  or  tar  gum,  dating  from  the 
2d  cent.,  all  in  the  Samaritan  character.  See 
Konig  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  Hastings  V. 

(W.) 


(IT)  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Old  Testament 

"  In  order  to  have  any  critical  value  whatever  a  version  must 
be  ancient  and  it  must  be  immediate.  Only  those  versions  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  held  to  be  ancient  in  this  technical  sense 
which  preceded  the  period  of  the  Massqrites,"  Green  Text  167. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


319 


Title. 

Language. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  Septuagint. 

Greek. 

About     th  e 

The  text  shows  important  varia- 

middle     of 

tions  from   the  Hebrew  as  we 

the  3d  cent. 

now  have  it. 

B.C. 

2.  The  Version 
of  Aquila. 

Greek. 

117-138  A.D. 

Made  for  the  use  of  Jews  in  opposi- 
tion  to   the  Septuagint,  which 

had  been  appropriated  by  the 

Christians. 

3.  The    Ver- 

Greek. 

About  the  2d 

A  revision  of  the  Septuagint. 

sion    of 

cent. 

Theodo- 

tion. 

4.  The  Version 

Greek. 

A.D.  200. 

Samaritan  influence  is  asserted  by 

of     Sym- 

Epiphanius  and  traced  by  Red- 

machus. 

path,  Hastings  IV.  465 

5.  Peschito. 

Syriac. 

2d  or  3d  cent. 

The  original  version  contains  no 

Apocrypha  nor  Chronicles.    It  is 

best   known    by    quotations   in 
Ephrem  and   Afrahat.    In   the 

5th  cent,  it  was  revised  and  en- 

larged with  the  help  of  the  Sep- 

tuagint.   See  Nestle  in  Hastings 

IV.  650,  and  Kenyon  Our  Bible, 

73-75.                            (W.,  D.) 

These  versions,  together  with  the  Hebrew  text  and  a  Greek 
transliteration  of  the  same,  were  collated  and  published  by 
Origen  (185-253  A.D.)  in  his  Hexapla.  The  fragments  of  the 
Hexapla  have  been  collected  and  published  by  Drusius  in  1622 ; 
Lambert  Bos  in  1709;  Montfaucon  in  1713;  and  by  Field  in 
1878.  (D.) 

Targums,  or  Aramaic  paraphrases  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
are  also  included  among  the  material  for  textual  criticism. 
Ten  targums  are  known  to  be  in  existence  in  whole  or  in  part. 

(D.) 


Title. 

Language. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  Samaritan 

West    Ara- 

2d cent.,    ac- 

The Law  only.  To  be  carefully  dis- 

Targum. 

maic. 

cording    to 

tinguished     from    the    Hebrew 

Kantzoch. 

copy  of  the  Law  in  the  custody 

of  the  Samaritans.    Both  were 

first  printed  in  the  Paris  Poly- 

glot of  1645.                        (W.) 

2.  Targum  of 

Aramaic. 

2d  or  3d  cent. 

The    Law    only.     Translated    in 

Onkelos. 

Judea,  revised  in  Babylon  two 

centuries    later.     Printed    1482 

at  Bologna.                          (W.) 

3.  Targum  of 
Jonathan 

Aramaic. 

3d  cent. 

The  Prophets  only.    A  companion 
to  the  preceding,  but  often  ad- 
ding comments.  Printed  1494  at 

I 

Leiria.                                   (W.) 

320 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  II 

(7)  Greek  Manuscripts  » 


Name. 

Refer- 
ence 
Mark. 

Probable 
Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  Codex  Sinai- 

M 

4th  cent. 

In   the   Imperial  Library,  St.  Peters- 

ticus. 

burg.     Contains  the  entire  N  T.  (D.) 

2.  Codex  Alex- 

A 

5th  cent. 

In    the    British    Museum.     From    the 

andrinus. 

N  T,  Matt  1-25  e,  Jno  6«o-862,  II  Cor 

4  13-12  16  are  missing.                 (D.) 

3.  Codex  Vati- 

B 

4th  cent. 

In  the  Vatican  Library.     Contains  all 

canus. 

the    N    T    books,   except   parts   of 

Hebrews,  Pastoral  Epistles,  and  the 

4.  Codex    Eph- 

C 

5th  cent. 

Apocalypse.                                 (D.) 
In  the  Royal  Library,  Paris.     "Frag- 

rsemi.2 
5.  Codex  Bezae. 

D 

Uncertain, 

ments  of  nearly  all  books."        (D.) 
[n  the  University  Library,  Cambridge, 

probably 

England.                                        (D.) 

the    6th 

cent. 

6.  Codex  Claro- 

D2 

6th  cent. 

In  the  Royal  Library,  Paris.     Contains 

montanus. 

all  Paul's  Epistles,  except  Rom  1  1-7- 

27-80.                                                                        (D.) 

7.  Codex    Lau- 

E2 

6th  cent. 

In  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford.     A 

dianus. 

Grseco-Latin  MS  of  the  Acts.     (D.) 

8.  C    o    d   e   x 

L 

8th  cent. 

[n  the  Royal  Library,  Paris.     Contains 

Regius. 

most  of  the  Gospels.                  (D.) 

9.  Codex    Ros- 
sanensis. 

2 

6th  cent. 

[n  the  Library,  Rossano.     The  earliest 
copy  of  the  Scriptures  adorned  with 

miniatures.                                  (D.) 

10.  Codex  Basil- 

E 

Middle  of 

In   the   Public   Library,  Basle.     Con- 

iensis. 

8th  cent. 

tains  all  of  the  Gospels  except  two 

short  passages.                             (D.) 

11.  Codex     Ni- 

R 

8th  or  9th 

In  the  British  Museum,  described  by 

triensis. 

cent. 

Scrivener  as  "very  important."     A 

palimpsest  containing  516  verses  of 

Luke.     Two  other  MSS  of  less  im- 

12. Codex    Har- 

G 

9th  cent. 

portance  are  also  marked  R.     (D.) 
tn  the  British  Museum. 

leianus. 

1  The  information  as  to  the  Greek  manuscripts  is  taken  from  the  following 
authorities:    Scrivener  Introduction  to  N  T  I.  90-189;   Westcott  Bible  in 
the  Church  302f.;    Maclear  Helps  13f.;    Mitchell  Critical  Handbook   108- 
136.  (D.) 

2  A  palimpsest,  t. «.,  a  manuscript  parchment  which  after  an  erasure,  partial 
or  otherwise,  has  been  written  over  a  second  time,  and  on  which  the  former 
writing  is  more  or  less  discernible.  (D.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


321 


Name. 

Refer- 
ence 
Mark. 

Probable 
Date. 

Remarks. 

13.  Codex      Cy- 
prius. 
14.  Codex  Cam- 

K 
M 

9th  cent. 
9th  cent. 

In  the  Royal  Library,  Paris,  a  com- 
plete copy  of  the  four  Gospels.  (D.) 
In  the  Royal  Library,  Paris,  the  four 

pianus. 
15.  Codex    Pur- 

N 

End  of  9th 

Gospels  complete.                        (D.) 
Parts  in  different  Libraries.          (D.) 

pureus. 

cent. 

16.  Codex      Tis- 
chendor- 

r 

About    9th 
cent. 

In  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford  (part)  ; 
the  rest  in  the  Imperial  Library,  St. 

fianus. 

Petersburg.     The  two  parts  contain 

17.  Codex    San- 

A 

About    9th 

nearly  all  the  four  Gospels.       (D.) 
In  the  Monastery  of  St.  Gall,  Switzer- 

gallensis. 

cent. 

land,  the     four     Gospels    complete, 

except  Jno  19  17-38.    Grseco-Latin. 

18.  Codex  Nani- 

u 

About    the 

In  the  Library  of  St.  Mark,  Venice. 

anus. 

10th  cent. 

Contains  the  four  Gospels  entire. 

(D.) 

(77)  The  Cursive  Manuscripts 

The  manuscripts  in  cursive  or  running  hand  date  from  the 
10th  to  the  15th  cent.  They  follow  the  main  body  of  the 
Uncials  with  remarkable  unanimity.  The  total  number  is  given 
by  Scrivener  Introduction  I.  189-326,  as: 

Gospels 1,326 

Acts  and  Catholic  Epistles . .  422 

Paul's  Epistles 497 

Apocalypse 184 

2,429 

In  this  calculation  the  numbers  in  each  class  are  given,  and 
a  MS  which  includes  parts  of  more  than  one  class  is  reckoned 
under  each  class.  (D.) 

(777)     Ancient  Versions  of  the  New  Testament 


Title. 

Language. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  Curetonian. 
2.  Peschito. 

Syriac. 
Syriac. 

2d  cent. 
411-435  A.D. 

Contains  the  Gospels  only.    Other 
books  are  quoted  by  Ephrem; 
but  he  seems  to  use,  instead  of 
these  separate  Gospels,  the  Dia- 
tessaron     of    Tatian  —  a    single 
composite  narrative.  (W.,  D.) 
A  revision  by  Rabbula.    See  Nestle 
in  Hastings  IV.  740.  More  books 
were  added,  but  not  II  and  III 
John,  II  Peter,   Jude,  Revela- 
tion. See  Burkitt  Early  Eastern 
Christianity.                 (W.,  D.) 

322 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Title. 

Language. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

3.  Harkleian. 

4.  Sahidic.  ) 
5.  Bohairic.  J 

6.  Gothic. 

Syriac. 
Egyptian. 
Gothic. 

61  6  A.D. 

3d  or  4th  cent. 
4th  cent. 

A  revision  of  a  version  made  in 
508  A.D.  in  a  most  literal  fash- 
ion.                                (W.,  D.) 
Forbes  Robinson  shows  in  Hastings 
I.  668,  that  an  earlier  date  is  not 
proven.                                 (W.) 
Large  fragments  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  Paul's  Epistles  survive.    As 
this  version  is  akin  to  the  Old 
Latin,  while    the  Armenian    is 
based  on  the  Syriac,  and    the 
Ethiopic  is   influenced   by  the 
Egyptian,  these  three  versions 
can  be  used  for  textual  criticism 
only  with  extreme  caution. 
(W.) 

SECTION  III 
The  Latin  Versions1 

The  best  known  and  most  important  of  the  Latin  Versions 
are: 


Name. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  The  Vulgate 
2.  Old  Latin. 

387  to  405  A.D. 
Before  250  A.D. 

Translated  by  Jerome.     The  O  T,  except  the 
Apocrypha,  from  the  Hebrew,  the  Apoc- 
rypha from  the  Septuagint.     The  N  T  was 
a  correction  of  the  existing  Latin  texts 
from  the  best  Greek  manuscripts.  (W.,  D.) 
Used  by  Cyprian  at  Carthage.      There  are 
many  varieties  of  text,  but  all  were  based  in 
the  O  T  upon  the  Septuagint.     A  careful 
study  of    the  surviving  codices   has  been 
made  in  the  following  works: 
Bibliorum  sacrorum  latinos  versiones  antiques 
seu  uetus  Italica,  by  Petrus  Sabatier,  3  vols. 
Rheims,    1739-1749,    reprinted   at  Paris, 
1757. 
The  Ancient  Versions  of  the  Four  Evangelists, 
by  Joseph  Bianchim,  2  vols.,  Rome,  1749. 
These  works  show  that  though  there  are 
points  of  difference,  there  are  traces  of  a 
source  common  to  many,  if  not  to  all  of 
them.                                                (W..D.) 

1  The  information  as  to  Latin  versions  is  taken  from  Scrivener  Introduc- 
tion II.  42f.  (D.) 

The  text  of  the  Vulgate  was  revised  by  Alcuin,  801  A.t>.,  by 
Theodulf,    by   Lanfranc   of   Canterbury    (1069-1089   A.D.),    by 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  323 

Stephen  Harding,  1109,  and  by  Cardinal  Nicolaus  Manicoria  in 
1150.  In  the  13th  cent,  a  more  systematic  revision  was  under- 
taken by  bodies  of  scholars  in  the  so-called  "Correctoria  Bibli- 
orum."  The  best  and  most  critical  of  these  is  the  Correctorium 
Vaticanum. 


SECTION  IV 
Lectionaries  and  Liturgies 

(I)  The  Lectionaries  are   summarized   by   Scrivener   Intro- 
duction I.  327-397,  as  follows: 

Evangelistaria,  containing  extracts  from  the  Gospels. 980 

Praxapostoli,  containing  extracts  from  the  Acts  and  Epistles .     293 

(II)  Liturgies  date  back  to  the  4th  or  5th  cent.     The  quo- 
tations are  however  rare  and  not  of  any  great  length.        (D.) 

SECTION  V 

Patristic  Citations 

1.  Dean  Burgon  in  The  Revision  Revised  (London,  1883),  has  arranged  all 
the  quotations  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  early  Fathers  on  a  system  which 
renders  it  only  the  work  of  a  minute  to  ascertain  how  any  particular 
Father  quoted  a  text. 

The  following  books  also  deal  with  the  subject: 

2. 1839.]Pusey,Keble  A  Library  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
and  New-      Anterior  to  the  Division  of  the  East  and  West.    (D.) 
man. 

3. 1892.  Schaff     and  Select  Library  of  Nicene  and  Post  Nicene  Father*.   (D.) 
I     Wace. 


324 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


B.— PRINTED  EDITIONS  OF  THE  TEXT  AND  OF  THE 
VULGATE  VERSION. 

SECTION  I 
Printed  Editions  of  the  Hebrew  Text 


Date. 


Place  of  Publication,  etc. 


1.  1482 

2.  1488 


3.  1491 

4.  1494 


5.  1516-17 

6.  1518 

7.  1524-26 

8.  1547-49 

9.  1568 

10.  1617 

11.  1618-20 

12.  1724-27 

13.  1776-80 

14.  1869-95 

15.  1876 

16.  1890 


17.  1894 


The  Law,  pointed,  with  Aramaic  version  and  Yarhi's  commen- 
tary, ed.  Abraham  b.  Hayim.  fol.  Bologna.  (W.) 

Hebrew  Bible,  pointed,  ed.  Abraham  b.  Hayim.     fol.    Son- 
cino.  (W.) 

The  Law,  Lisbon.  (W.) 

Hebrew  Bible,  ed.  Berson  b.  Moses.  8vo.  Brescia. 

The  basis  of  the  Complutensian,  Bomberg's  first  rabbini- 
cal, Bomberg's  first  and  second  Bibles,  Miinster's  Basel 
edition.  (W.) 

This  edition  was  used  by  Luther  in  his  translation.   (D.) 

First    rabbinical    Bible,    ed.    Felix   Pratensis.     fol.     4    vols. 
Venice.  (W.) 


Rabbinical 
Bibles 


I  Published  at  Venice  by  Bomberg. 

(  J.  de  Card, 

Published  at  Venice  by  <  Bragadine, 
I  f  Buxtorf. 


(D.) 
(D.) 


Rabbinical  Bible,  ed.  Moses  b.  Sim3on  of  Frankfurt. 

Vetus  Testamentum  Hebraicum,  with  various  readings,  ed. 
Benjamin  Kennicott.  fol.  2  vols.  Oxford.  (W.) 

Critical  Hebrew  Texts.     Baer,  Leipzig. 

Prophetarum  posteriorum.  Codex  Babylonica  PetropoUtana. 
Strack,  St.  Petersburg.  (W.) 

The  Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Haupt,  Leipzig, 
Baltim9re,  and  London.  A  critical  edition  of  the  Hebrew 
text  printed  in  colors.  (W.) 

The  Twenty-four  Books.  2  vols.  London.  (Christian) 
David  Ginsburg.  An  elaborate  apparatus  of  the  Massorah 
is  the  chief  feature.  (W.,  D.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


325 


SECTION  II 
(7)  Printed  Editions  of  the  Greek  Text 


Name. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  Novum  Instrumentum 

1516 

Four    subsequent     editions     pub- 

omne    diligenter     ab 

fol.  Basel. 

lished  with  considerable   emen- 

Erasmo     Roterdamo 

dations  in  1519,  1522,  1527,  and 

recognitum  et  emen- 

1535.                                       (D.) 

datum.              (W.) 

The      Emperor      Maximilian 

granted   to   this  edition  an  ex- 

clusive right  to  circulate  in  the 

Holy   Roman    Empire   for  four 

years,  and  this  may  partly  ac- 

count for  the  delay  in  circulat- 

ing the  Complutensian  Polyglot. 

As  a  matter  of  fact.  Aldus  took 

this  as  the  groundwork  of  his 

own  edition.      It  was  the  3d  ed. 

of  1522,  which  Tyndale  seems  to 

have  used,  revised,  with  head- 

ings.                                      (W.) 

2.  Sacra  Scripturce  Veter- 

1518-19 

Known  as  the  Aldine  edition. 

is  Novceque  omnia. 

Small    fol. 

(D.) 

Venice. 

3.  Novum     Testamentum 

1550 

Robert  Stephanus  (1546).     Three 

Greece. 

fol.  Paris. 

other   editions   were   published. 

the  3d  or  folio  in  1550.  (D.)    The 

text  of  1550  is  called  in  England 

the  "  Received  Text."       (W.) 

4.  Novum     Testamentum 

1598 

Earlier  editions  were  in  1565,  1576, 

cum  versions  Latina 

fol.  Geneva. 

1582,  1589.     This  was  perhaps 

veteri  et  nova  Theo- 

the  text  used  in  1611  by  James's 

dori  Bezfe.      (W.) 

revisers.                               (W.) 

5.  Novum     Testamentum 

1624  and  1633 

This   second   edition    became    the 

Greece     ex     officina 

1  2mo.  Leyden 

"Received  Text"  on  the  Con- 

Elzeviriana. 

tinent.                                   (W.) 

1673 

An  edition  atRomebyCaryophilus, 
collated  from  the  Vatican  manu- 

6. Novum    Testamentum 

1707 

script.                                  (W.) 

Grcecumcum  lection  i- 

fol.  Oxford. 

bus  variantibus  MSS 

Exemplarium      Ver- 
sionum,   Editionum. 

SS.  Patrum  et  Scrip- 

torum      Ecclesiasti- 

corum  et  in  easdem 

notisStudioet  labore 

JoannisMilliiS.T.P. 

7.  Novum     Testamentum 

1734.    4  to. 

It  classified  MSS  into  groups.     2d 

Grcecum  inserviente. 

Tubingen. 

ed.  1763.                       (W.,  D.) 

J.  A.  B(engel) 

8.  Novum     Testamentum 

1751-52.    2 

A    million    quotations.     Notation 

Grcecum.     Wetstein. 

vols.  fol. 

invented  as  now  used. 

Amsterdam. 

(W..  D.) 

9.  Novum     Testamentum 

1796  (vol.  i) 

1st    ed.    1775-77.      It  gives  only 

Greece. 

1806  (vol.  ii). 

selected  variants.        (W.,  D.) 

J.  J.  Griesbach. 

London     and 

Jena. 

326 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Name. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

10.  Novum     Testamentum 

1800 

juxta    exemplar,    J 

Worcester, 

Millii     accuratissime 

Mass.     (W.) 

impressum    E  d  i  t  i  o 

prima  Americana. 

11.  Novum     Testamentum 

1830-36 

The  fourth  Catholic  critical  edition 

Greece.      J.     M.    A 

2    vols.  m  4to 

with    plenty    of   fresh    material 

Scholz. 

Leipzig. 

used  most  carelessly.    Reprinted 
1841  in  Bagster,  Eng.  Hexapla. 

(W.) 

12.  Novum     Testamentum 

1831 

Lachmann's  first  edition,  the  first 

Greece. 

that    made    a    new    beginning, 

Carl  Lachmann. 
13.  N.  T.  G.  et  Latine. 

and 
1842-50 

neglecting  previous  printed  edi- 
tions.                                    (W.) 

2  vols.  Berlin. 

14.  The  New  Testament  in 

1861 

the    original    Greek 

London. 

with    introductions 

and    notes.      Chris- 

topher    Words- 

worth.                  (D.) 

15.  The  Greek    Testament 

1862-65 

with  a   critically  re- 

London. 

vised  text,  digest  0} 

readings,  etc.  Henry 

Alford.              (D.) 

16.  The  Greek  New  Testa- 

1857-72 

ment,   edited    from 

4to.  London. 

ancient    authorities. 

etc.    S.  P.  Tregelles. 

(W..  D.) 

17.  Novum     Testamentum 

1865-72 

This  is  beyond  question  the  most 

Greece.    Constantine 

Leipzig. 

full  and  comprehensive  edition 

Tischendorf. 

of  the  Greek  Testament  exist- 

ing.                               (W.,  D.) 

18.  The  New  Testament  in 

1881.  Cam- 

'Drs. Westcott  and  Hort  depart 

the    original    Greek. 

bridge    and 

more  widely  from  the  received 

B.  F.  Westcott  and 

London.     2 

text   than   any  previous  editor 

F.  J.  A.  Hort. 

vols.    8vo. 

had  thought  necessary."  (D.) 
This   edition   expounded    in   its 

second     volume     an     elaborate 

theory  of  textual  criticism  which 

now  almost  holds  the  field.  .  .  . 

Westcott  and  Hort  had  a  deep 

influence  on  the  revisers  of  1881  , 

among  whom  they  sat;  so  that 

their  editions  give  substantially 

the  same  text.                     (W.) 

1894-1900 

Three  volume  edition  with  notes 

by  Weiss.                             (W.)  t 

19.  Novum     Testamentum 

1901. 

A  fourth  edition  was  published  in 

Greece  cum  apparatu 

Small  8vo. 

1904  at  London  by  the  British 

critico  ex  editionibus 
et  libris  manuscriptis 

Stuttgart. 
(W.) 

and  Foreign  Bible  Society. 

collecto  curavit  Eb- 

erhard  Nestle.    Edi- 

tio  tertia  recognita. 

1905 

st  ed.   1886.      3d  ed.  1905,  with 

20.  The    Resultant    Greek 

London. 

Introduction  by  Bp.  Perowne. 

Testament,   etc.,   bv 

Weymouth.        (W.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


327 


(77)  Editions  of  Parts  of  the  New  Testament 


Editor. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

1.  J.  B.  Lightfoot. 

2.  Dean  Stanley. 
3.  Bishop  Ellicott. 
4.  A.Wright. 

1880 
to 
1885 
1885 

1887 
1903 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.                                   (D.) 

The  Greek  Text  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 
(D.) 
The  Greek  Text  of  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians. 

A  Synopsis  of  the  Gospelsin  Greek.                  (D.) 

The  text  constructed  by  the  English  Revisers  in  preparation  for  their 
Revised  Translation  was  published  in  two  forms,  of  which  the  following 
are  the  full  titles: 

(1)  The  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  according  to  the  text 
followed  in  the  Authorized  Version,  together  with  the  variations  adopted 
in  the  Revised  Version.     Edited  for  the  Syndics  of    the  Cambridge 
University  Press,  by  F.  H.  A.  Scrivener,  M.A..  D.C.L.,  LL.D..  Pre- 
bendary of  Exeter  and  Vicar  of  Hendon.     Cambridge,  1 881 .  (D.) 

(2)  The  Greek  Testament,  with  the  Readings  Adopted  by  the  Revisers 
of  the  Authorized   Version.   Oxford,   at   the  Clarendon  Press,    1881. 
(Preface  by  the  editor,  Archdeacon  Palmer,  D.D.)  (D.) 

SECTION  III 

Printed  Editions  of  the  Latin  Text 
(7)  The  Vulgate 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.   Biblia  Sacra 

1455 

From  the  press  of  Fust  and  Scheff  er.           (W  .) 

Latina. 

2  vols.  fol. 

Mainz. 

1504 
1528 

The  first  critical  edition  by  Castillanua. 
Edition  by  Stephanus.     The  first  edition  of  a 

really  critical  nature.                                   (D.) 

1540 

The  fourth  edition  by  Stephanus  at  Paris  was 

furnished  with  the  readings  of  17  manuscripts 

and  3  older  editions.     White  says  it  is  really 

the  foundation  of  the  Clementine  Vulgate.     It 

fell,  however,  under  censure.             (W..  D.) 

Other  editions  are  by  John  Hentenius,  Lou- 
vain.  1547;   Th.  Vivian.  Paris,  1534;    Junta, 

Louvain.  1534;    Isidore  Clarius,  Venice,  1542; 

J.  Benedictus.  Paris,  1558;  Paul  Eber.  1565; 

Luke  Osiander.  1578.                                   (D.) 

2.  Biblia  Sacra 
V  ulgatce 

1590 
3  vols.  fol. 

The  "authentic"  version  published  by  the  order 
of  Pope  Sixtus  V                                 (W.  D.) 

editionis 

Rome. 

ad    concilii 

Tridentini 

prsescrip- 

tum  emen- 

data. 

328 


BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

3.  Biblia  Sacra 

1592 

The  above  was  superseded  by  the  second  au- 

LatinaVul- 

fol.  Rome. 

thentic  edition,  published  by  order  of  Pope 

gatce    edi- 

Clement VIII.                                               (D.) 

tionis  Sixti 

This  edition  was  to  replace  the  former,  and 

V    Pont. 

bears  the  name  of  Sixtus,  though  by  degrees 

Max.  jussu 

it  has  become  known  as  the  Clementine  text. 

recognita 

(W.) 

atque   edi- 

ta.     (W.) 

4.  Biblia  Sacra 

1598 

The  last  edition  from  the  Vatican  press,  with 

Vulgatce 

Rome 

tables  of  corrections  to  its  predecessors.  (W.) 

Editionis. 

.  .  .  Romce. 

Ex    Typo- 

g  r  aphia 
Vaticana. 

(W.) 

5.  Biblia  Sacra 
Vulgatce 
editionis, 
etc. 

1824 
Tubingen. 

Holy  Bible,  Vulgate  edition,  according  to  the 
standard  copy  of  the  Vatican  Press,  of  Rome, 
1592;    revised  according  to  the  corrections  of 
the  Revision  Index  published  at  Rome  for  the 

use  of  Vatican  Latin  Bibles  in  the  years  1592, 

1593,  1598;  together  with  readings  taken  from 
the  Vatican  Latin  Bibles,  1590,  1592,  1598, 

which  differ  among  themselves,  added  and  set 

in  parallel  columns:    edited  by  Leander  Van 

Ess.                                                               (B.) 

6.  Biblia  Sacra 
Vu  Igatce 
editionis 

1828 
1861 
Rome. 

Didot's  Paris  reprint  of  the  Clementine  text. 
"The  best  reprint  of  the  Clementine  Vulgate 
Bible."—  White.                                         (W.) 
Bagster's  editions  of  1831  and  1872  give  no 

Sixti  V    et 

critical  apparatus.                                     (W.) 

dementis 

VIILPontt 

Maxx  jus- 

su recog- 

nita atque 

edita. 

(W.) 

7.  Biblia  Sacra 

1873 

The  Holy  Latin  Bible,  The  Old  Testament,  trans- 

Latina Ve- 
teris    Tes- 

Leipzig. 

lated  by  Jerome  from  the  most  ancient  source. 
Edited  by  C.  J.  De  Bunsen,  T.  Heyse,  and  C. 

tam  enti, 

Tischendorf.                                                 (B.) 

etc.     (W.) 

8.  NovumJesu 

1896 

Claims  to  be  a  most  accurate  reprint  of  the 

C  h  r  i  sti 

Mechlin. 

edition  of  1861. 

Testamen- 

tum. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


329 


(77)  Other  Latin  Versions1 


Date. 


Translator. 


Particulars. 


1.  1516  Erasmus. 


2.  1528  Sanctes  Pagninus. 


3.  1535  Sebastian  Munster. 

4.  1543  Leo    Juda,    Zwingli, 

Bibliander  and 
others. 
Other  versions. 


'The  principal  object  of  the  volume  was  the 
new  Latin  version,  the  original  being  placed 
alongside  as  a  guarantee  of  the  translator's 
good  faith."  It  was  highly  commended  by 
Pope  Leo  X.  Four  editions  were  printed  in 
England,  with  Tyndale's  England  alongside. 

(W.) 

This  Dominican  friar  translated  the  whole 
Bible  into  Latin.  The  O  T  is  translated 
from  the  Hebrew  and  "is  much  used  and 
highly  prized  on  account  of  the  literalness 
with  which  the  Hebrew  text  is  rendered." 
(Moulton  History  37.)  (D.) 

A  translation  of  the  O  T  from  the  Hebrew. 


(D.) 

chola 


6.  1557 


Beza. 


Printed  at  Zurich.    Version  by  some  scholars 
of  Zurich  of  the  whole  Bible.  (D.) 

By  Castalio,  the  whole  Bible,  1551 :  Version  of 
the  O  T  in  Latin  and  of  the  Synac  N  T,  by 
Tremellius,  1579;  Latin  version  of  the  Apoc- 
ha,  by  Junius,  1579.  (D.) 

(D.) 


1  The  particulars  as  to  these  translations  are  taken  from  Westcqtt  A 
General  View  of  the  History  of  the  English  Bible  169f.;  and  Moulton  History 
of  the  English  Bible  37  f  (D.) 

SECTION  IV 
Printed  Polyglots 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  Psalterium,   Hebreum,   Grec- 

1516 

The  first  result  of  Aldus's  sug- 

um, Arabicum,  and   Chal- 

fol. 

gestion  of  a  polyglot;  and  ap- 

deum, cum  tribus  interpre- 
tationibus  and  glossis. 

Genoa. 

parently  the  first  Hebrew  text 
edited  by  Christians. 

2.  Biblia  Sacra  Polyglotta,  com- 
plectentia  Vetus  Testamen- 

1517-20 
6  vols.  fol. 

The  Complutensian   Polyglot 
compiled  under  the  direction 

tum,  Hebraico,  Grceco,   et 

Alcala. 

of  Cardinal  Ximenes. 

Latino    Idiomati;    Novum 

(W.,  D.) 

Testamenti,     Grcecum     et 

Other  early  polyglots  were 

Latinum  .  .  .  Studio,  Opere, 

the  Antwerp,  1569-1572;  the 

et    Impensis    Card.     FT. 
Ximenes  de  Cisneros. 

Polyglot  of  Vatable,  1586;  the 
Hamburg  or  Wolders    Poly- 

(W.) 

glot,  1596;  and  flutter's  Poly- 

3. [The  Law;  in  Hebrew,  Ara- 

1546 

glot,  1599.                        (D.) 
By  Jews,  for  Jews  under  Muslim 

maic,  Persian,  and  Arabic.] 

fol. 

rule,    the    new    versions    by 

Constanti- 

Jews 

nople. 

330 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

4.  BibliaHebraica,Samaritana, 

1629-45 

The    Paris    Polyglot.      It  con- 

Chaldaica, Graeca,  Syriaca. 

lOvols.  fol. 

tains  all  that  is  in  the  Com- 

Latino,   Arabica. 

Paris. 

plutensian  and  Antwerp  Poly- 

glots, the  greater  part  of  the 

O  T  and  the  N  T  in  Syriac  and 
the  Arabic  Versions.     The  Sa- 

maritan Pentateuch  is  for  the 

first  time  printed.    (W.,  D.) 

5.  Biblia  Sacra  Polyglotta,  com- 
plectentia  Textus  Origina- 

1657 
6  vols.  fol. 

The  Walton  Polyglot.     It  con- 
tains the  Bible  in 

te*  .  .  .  Versionum  queAn- 
tiquarum,  .  .  . 
Brian  Walton,  S.T.D. 

London. 

Hebrew,                   Arabic, 
Samaritan,              Ethiopic, 
Chaldee,                   Persian, 

Greek,                      Latin. 

Syriac                       (W..  D.) 

6.  Polyglot  of  Reineccius. 

1750 

(D.) 

Leipzig. 

7.  Bagster's  London  Polyglot. 

1818 

(D.) 

London. 

8.  Polyglotten-Bibel  .   .   .   des 
Urtextes,  der  Septuaginta, 

1847-49 
Bielefeld. 

The  best  cheap  polyglot. 
(W.) 

Vulgata.   .   .   .   Sowie    die 

6  vols. 

wichtigsten  Varianten  .  .  . 

von  R.  Stier  und  K.  G.  W. 

Theile. 

C.— ENGLISH    VERSIONS    ANTEDATING 
AUTHORIZED    VERSION 

SECTION  I 
(7)    Translations  Before  1400 


THE 


Date. 


Title  and  Particulars. 


1.  680 

2.  900? 

3.  1023 

4.  1150? 


5.  1320? 


Ccedmonis  monachi  paraphrasis  poetica  Genesios  ac  praecipuarum 
sacrce  pagince  historiarum,  Anglo-Saxonice,  nunc  (1655)  primum 
edita  a  Fr.  Junio.  4to.  2  vols.  Amsterdam.  (W.) 

Anglo-Saxon  and  Early  English  Psalter,  now  (1843-47)  first  pub- 
lished from  MSS  in  the  British  Museum  (for  the  Surtees  Society 
by  J.  Stevenson).  8vo.  2  vols.  London.  (W.) 

H eptateuchus,     Liber     Job,    et    Evangelium     Nicodemi. 

Thwaites,  1698.     Oxford.      Remnants  of  a  metrical  version  by 
Aelfric,  abridged  from  the  historical  books  of  the  O  T.         (W.) 

The  Holy  Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Northumbrian  and  Old  Mercian 
Version.  Skeat,  'to.  1871-87.  Cambridge. 

This  edition  gives  not  only  the  Lindisfarne  and  Rushworth 
texts  Latin  and  English,  but  also  two  MSS  of  about  1100  and 
1150,  which  attest  the  latest  form  known  as  "Anglo-Saxon." 

(W.) 

New  Versions  follow  the  revival  of  national  feeling  in  the  14th 
cent. 

The  Earliest  Complete  English  Psalter,  together  with  Eleven 
Canticles.  Buelbring,  1891.  London.  (W.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


331 


Date. 


Title  and  Particulars. 


6.  1350? 


A  Fourteenth  Century  English  Biblical  Version,  from  MSS  con- 
taining a  translation  of  nearly  half  of  the  New  Testament,  en- 
tirely independent  of  the  Wyclifite  version.  Anna  C.  Paues. 
Cambridge;  1904.  (B.) 

Contains  parts  of  Matthew  and  Acts  and  most  of  the  Epistles. 


(77)  Translations  by  Wyclif 


Books  Translated. 

Date. 

Remarks. 

I.  N  T. 
2.  O  T. 

3.  The  whole  Bible.2 

1380 
1382 

1388 

Translated  from  the  Vulgate. 
Genesis  to  Baruch  (320),  translated  by  Nicholas 
de  Hereford,  the  rest  by  Wyclif.    MSS  in  Bod- 
leian Library,  Oxford. 
Revision  of  edition  of  1380.     MSS  preserved  at 
Dublin.                                                          (D.) 
Known  as  "Purvey's  Revision."         (B.) 

This  Section  refers  to  manuscripts  only.  Particulars  are  from  Westcott 
General  View  16f.;  Mombert  English  Versions  of  the  Bible  45f . ;  Moulton 
History  59f. 

2  To  these  we  must  add:  The  New  Testament  in  Scots,  being  Purvey' a 
Revision  of  Wycliffe' s  Version  turned  into  Scots  by  Murdoch  Nisbet  (1520?). 
Printed  for  the  Scottish  Text  Society,  1901.  (W.) 


(777)  Printed  Editions  of  Wyclif  s  Bible 


Title. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


The  New  Testament  of  our  Lord 
and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  trans- 
lated out  of  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
by  John  Wycliffe. 


J.  Lewis. 


ed.  Rev. 
(B.) 


2.  The   New    Testament  translated 

into  English  about  1380,  by 
John  Wycliffe.  Now  first  print- 
ed from  a  contemporary  MSS 
formerly  in  the  Monastery  of 
Sion,  Middlesex,  late  in  the 
collection  of  Lea  Wilson,  F.S.A. 
(B.) 

3.  The  Song  of  Solomon,  Dr.  Adam 

Clarke. 

4.  The  Holy  Bible,  containing  th  e  Old 

and  New  Testaments  with  the 
apocryphal  booksin  the  earliest 
English  versions,  made  from 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  by  John  Wy- 
cliffe and  his  followers. 

(B..D.) 


1731 
London. 


1810 
London. 


1848 
London. 


1810-25 
London 

1850 
4  vols. 

4to. 
Oxford. 


N  T 

$ 

Cor 


T   taken    from   two    MSS 

1)  in    Bodleian     Library; 

2)  in  possession  of  Rev.  W. 
Conybeare,  Dean  of  Llan- 
daff.  (D.) 

Edited  by  Baker.  Reprint  of 
above  with  improved  glos- 
sary. (D.) 

Printed  from  MSS  of  Wyclif 's 
earlier  version  of  the  N  T  in 
Lord  Ashburnham's  collec- 
tion. (D.) 


From  MSS  in  British  Museum. 
(D.) 

Purvey's  revision  of  1388. 
edited  by  Forshall  and 
Madden.  This  fine  edition 
supersedes  former  printed 
editions  both  for  text  and 
introduction.  Several  re- 
prints of  various  portions 
have  been  made.  (W.) 


332 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  II 

Tyndale's  Version 

A  glance  at  the  next  division — D — of  this  bibliography  will 
show  that  many  other  nations  now  had  regular  versions  in  print, 
provided  by  Catholics;  but  the  first  instalments  of  a  regular 
English  version  were  left  to  private  enterprise  for  sixty  years. 
None  of  these  obtained  official  indorsement  from  crown  or 
convocation  until  England  had  thrown  off  the  Papal  dominion. 
Even  between  1554  and  1570,  when  England  was  more  or  less 
restored  to  "  its  orbit  in  the  ecclesiastical  firmament,"  no 
Catholic  version  was  published.  (W.) 


Particulars. 

Date. 

Reprints. 

1.  Quarto     edition     of     3,000 

1526 

Facsimile  ed.  by  Archer.    Lon- 

copies.    The  first  English 

(Ten  sheets 

don,  1871.                         (B.) 

N  T  ever  printed  and  the 
first  made  from  the  origi- 
nal.    Of  this  edition  only 

printed  at 
Cologne 
and  taken 

Facsimile  ed.  by  Fry.    Bristol, 
1862,  and   by   Dabney.  New 
York.                          (W.,  D.) 

a    fragment    (the    Green- 

toWorms, 

ville  fragment)  containing 

where  per- 

the  prologue  and  21  chap- 

haps  the 

ters   of   Matthew   is   pre- 

edi tion 

served.                        (D.) 

was    fin- 

ished), 

2.  Octavo     edition     of     3,000 

1526 

Facsimile   edition   by   Fry   and 

copies,  the  prologue  and 
glosses  omitted.     Of  this 

Worms. 

Bagster  under  the  directorship 
of  Offor  from  the  copy  in  St. 

edition  one  perfect  copy  is 

Paul's.                                (D.) 

in  the  Baptist  College  at 

Bristol,  and  an  imperfect 
one  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral. 

(D.) 

1526 

Printed  by  Christopher  of  End- 

Antwerp. 

hoven.                              (D.) 

1527-28 

A    piratical     edition    of    5,000 

Antwerp. 

copies.     Very  rare.         (D.) 

3.  The  prophete  Jonas. 

1531? 
Antwerp? 

Perhaps  the  first  translation  from 
the  Hebrew  direct  to  English. 

With  an  introduction  on  the 

right  use  and  understanding  of 

Scripture. 

4.  The  fyrst  boke  of  Moses  called 

1530-1 

The   five  books  were  issued  to- 

Genesis. 

Marburg. 

gether,  but  without  one  gen- 

eral title. 

5. 

1534 

Tyndale's  N  T,  pirated  by  Joye. 

Antwerp. 

(W.,  D.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


333 


Particulars, 


6.  The  newe  Testament  dyly- 
gently  corrected  and  com- 
pared with  the  Greke  by 
Willyam  Tindale.  (W.) 


7.  The  newe  Testament  yet 
once  agyne  corrected  by 
Willyam  Tindale.  (W.) 


8.  The  New  Testament. 


Date. 


1534        Revised    version    by    Tyndale, 
8vo.  usually  known  as  the  2d  ed. 

Antwerp.  Marginal  notes  added.  .  .  . 
Reprinted  in  Bagster  Hexa- 
pla,  from  a  copy  in  the  Library 
of  the  Baptist  College,  Bristol. 

(D.) 

Anne  Boleyn  accepted  a 
copy  of  this  edition.  (W.) 
A  revised  edition  prepared  by 
Tyndale  while  in  prison  at 
Vilvorde.  A  perfect  copy  is 
preserved  in  the  Cambridge 
Univ.  Library  and  an  imper- 
fect one  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum. (D.) 
The  last  edition  retouched  by 
Tyndale,  basis  of  "Matthew" 

[1537].  (D.) 

(W.)  Supposed    to  be   the  first  part 

of  the  Bible  printed  in  Eng- 
land. (W.) 
Other  portions  of  Scripture  which  appeared  at  this  time  were:  The 
Psalter  in  1530;  Isaiah  (Joye),  1531;  Jeremiah  (Joye)  in  1534;  the 
Psalter  (Joye)  in  1534.  None  of  these  detached  books  entered  into 
any  Bible,  except  Tyndale's  five  books  of  Moses  which  appear  to  have 
always  been  published  together.  (W.) 


1534-35 

8vo. 
Antwerp. 


1536 

fol. 

London. 


Reprints. 


SECTION  III 
Cover  dale's  Bible 

This  version  is  based  on  the  Vulgate,  Luther,  Zurich,  Pagninus, 
and  Tyndale  (Westcott  General  View  383).  (D.) 


Title. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


Biblia.  The  Bible,  that  is  the 
Holy  Scrypture  of  the  Olde 
and  New  Testament,  fayth- 
fully  and  truly  translated 
out  of  Douche  and  Latyn 
into  Englyshe  MDXXXV. 
(W..B.) 


1535 
uncertain. 


1536 
Southwark, 


The  first  complete  Bible  printed 
in  English.  (W.) 

Reprinted  in  1838:  The 
Holy  Scriptures  faithfully  and 
truly  translated  by  Myles  Cover- 
dale,  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter, 
1535.  Reprinted  from  the  copy 
in  the  library  of  H.  R.  H.  the 
Duke  of  Sussex,  for  Samuel 
Bagster,  1838,  London.  (The 
above  is  in  the  Yale  Library.) 
(B.) 

Second  edition  of  the  1535  is- 
sue. 

Two  editions ,  not  sanctioned 
byCoverdale,  appeared  in  1537 
and  1538,  and  a  diglot,  Coy- 
erdale's  version  and  the  Latin 
Vulgate  at  Paris,  1538.  Later 
editions  of  Coverdale  appeared 
at  London  in  1550  and  1553. 
(D.) 


334  BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 

SECTION  IV 
Rogers's  (Matthew's)  Bible 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

The  Bj/ble  which  is  all  the  holy 
scriptui~e,in  why  chare  con- 
tayned  the  Olde  and  Newe 
Testament  truly  and  pure- 

1537 
fol. 
Antwerp.? 

This  edition  was  edited  by  John 
Rogers,  chaplain  to  the  Mer- 
chants' House  at  Antwerp.  It 
contained  all  Tyndale's  work 

ly  translated  into  Englysh 
by  Thomas  Matthew.  .  .  . 

except  Jonah  .  .  .  the  remain- 
der was  on  the  basis  of  Cover- 

Set  forth  with  the  Kinges 

dale.                                (W.) 

most  gracyous  lycece. 

Copies  in  the  British  Museum, 
Lambeth     Palace,     Bodleian 

Library,    etc.     "For    critical 

purposes,     Matthew's     Bible 

possesses  only  a  relative  value, 

and  yet  it  is  a  very  important 
one,    as    being   virtually    the 

basis  of  the  text  of  the  Author- 

ized Version."  (Mombert  Eng- 

lish Versions  194.)    (D.) 

1549 

The  Bible  and  Apocrypha,  trans- 

and 

lated  by  "T.  Matthew"  (John 

1551 

Rogers),   1549.     In  Yale  Li- 

brary :     twenty-two    leaves 

missing.                             (B.) 

SECTION  V 

Taverner's  Bible 

Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Most  Sacred  Bible, 

1539 

This  version  is  based  on  Mat- 

Whiche is  the  holy  scrip- 

fol.and4to. 

thew's,  the  Vulgate   and   the 

ture,    conteyning    the   old 

London. 

Greek  Text.     (Westcott  Gen- 

and new  testament  trans- 

eral View  383ff.) 

lated   into    English,    and 

It  influenced  the  Rheims  trans- 

newly    recognized     with 
great  diligence    after  the 
most  faythful  exemplars, 

lators,  but  not  so  strongly 
as  Coverdale's  diglot. 
(W.) 

by  Rychard  Taverner. 

(W.) 

2.  The  New   Testament   in 

1539 

Two  editions  of  the  N.  T. 

Englysshe. 

4to  and 

8vo. 

1549-1551 

A    five-volume   edition   of   the 

8vo. 

OT. 

1551 

The  O  T  revised  by  Becke,  to- 

fol. 

gether  with  Tyndale's  N  T. 
These  editions  are   expressly 

noted  by  Darlow  and  Moule, 

as  erroneous  statements  are 

frequently  made.           (W.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


335 


SECTION  VI 
The  Great  Bible 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

The  Byble  in  Englyshe,  that  is 

1539 

This  version  is  based  on  Mat- 

to saye  the  content  of  all 
the  holy  scrypture,  both  of 
ye  olde  and  newe  testament 

fol. 
London. 

thew's,  Munster,  Erasmus,  and 
the   Complutensian  Polyglot. 
(Westcott     General     View 

truly  translated  after  the 

383ff.)      A    copy   on   vellum 

veryte  of  the  Hebrue  and 

and  illuminated  is  preserved 

Greke  textes,  by  ye  dyly- 
gent  studye  of  dyuerse  ex- 
cellent learned  men,  expert 

in  St.  John's    College,  Cam- 
bridge.      2,500      copies,    all 
printed  in  black  letter,  were 

in  the  forsayde  tonges. 

issued.    A  reprint  of  the  N  T 
of  this  edition  will  be  found 

in  Bagster  English  Hexapla. 

(D.) 

The  Byble  in  Englyshe,  that  is 

1540 

Second  edition,  with  Cranmer'a 

to   saye    the   contet   of   al 
the  holy  scripture  both  of 

2ded. 
London. 

preface.                           (D.) 

ye   olde,   and   newe  testa- 

met,      with      a      prologe 

therinto  made  by  the  reu- 

erende    father     in     God, 

Thomas    archbysshop    of 

Canterbury.     This  is  the 

Byble  apoynted  to  the  vse 
of  the  churches.       (W.) 

1540 

The  edition  of  November  1540 

(July  and 

and  November  1541  bear  on 

Nov.) 

the   title-page   the   names  of 

London. 

Cuthbert  Tunstall,  Bishop  of 

London,  and  Nicholas  Heath, 

Bishop  of  Rochester,  as  "hav- 

ing overseen  and  perused"  the 
publication  by  the  command- 

ment  of   "  the    Kings   High- 

ness."    Other    editions    were 

published  in  May,  November 

and  December  1541  and  1569. 

The  British  Museum  has  copies 

of  all  these  editions.       (D.) 

In  1547-49  three  editions  of  the  N  T  with  the  Latin  of  Erasmus  were 
published  and  the  following  editions  of  other  Bibles:  Coverdale,  3; 
Great  Bible,  7;  Matthew,  5;  Taverner,  2;  Tyndale,  24.  (D.) 

The  diglot  N  T  of  1538  (Regnault,  Paris),  containing  the  English  of 
Coverdale  and  the  Latin  Vulgate,  influenced  the  Catholic  English 
translators  of  the  Douay  and  Rheims  versions.  The  English  text  is 


not  that  of  the  1535  Bible,  but  is  adapted  to  the  Vulgate. 


(W.) 


336 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  VII 
The  Genevan  Bible 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Nerve  Testament  of  ovr 

1557 

The  version  is  due  to  Whitting- 

Lord  lesus  Christ.     Con- 

8vo. 

ham,    pastor    of    the    exiled 

ferred  diligently  with  the 

Geneva. 

English  Church  in  succession 

Greke  and  best  approued 

to  Knox.    He  revised  Tyndale 

translations.     With  argu- 
ments  as  wel   before   the 

with   the   help   of  the   Great 
Bible    and    of  Beza's    Latin. 

chapters,  as  for  euery  Boke 
&    Epistle,    also    diuersi- 

Bagster  reprinted  this  in  1841. 
(W.) 

ties  of  readings,  and  moste 

It  contains  an  introductory 

profitable  annotations  of 

epistle  by  Calvin.           (D.) 

all  harde  places:  wherunto 

is  added  a  copious  Table. 

(W.) 

2.  The  Psalms. 

1159 

The  first  instalment  of  the  O  T. 

Geneva. 

3.  The  Bible  and  Holy  Scrip- 

1560 

Edition  of  the  whole  Bible  by 

tures     conteyned     in     the 
Olde  and  Newe  Testament. 

4to. 
Geneva. 

Whittingham,    Gilby,    Samp- 
son, assisted  at  first  probably 

Translated    according    to 

by    Myles    Coverdale.     With 

the  Ebrue  and  Greke,  and 

them  were  associated  Knox, 

conferred    with    the    best 

Goodman,  Cole,  Pullam   and 

translations  in  diuers  Ian- 

Bodleigh.                           (D.) 

gages.    With  moste  profit- 

The   Genevan     Bible    im- 

able annotations  upon  all 
the  harde  places. 

mediately    became     popular, 
and  about   150  editions  were 

(W.,  B.) 

printed  in  eighty  years,  Bod- 
ley  securing  the  English  copy- 

right   for    seven    years  from 

Queen  Elizabeth..           (W.) 

This    version    is    based    on 

Tyndale  and  Beza.    (Westcott 

4.  The  Bible  and  Holy  Scrip- 
tvres  conteined  in  the  Olde 

N  T  1576 
O  T  1579 

General  View  383ff  .)       (D.) 
This   was    apparently    the  first 
large  book   printed   in   Scot- 

and Newe  Testament.  .  .  . 

fol. 

land.    The  Scotch  Authorized 

Printed  in  Edinbrvgh  Be 

Version                             (W.) 

Alexander  Arbuthnot, 

printer   to    the  Kingis 

Maiestie. 

SECTION  VIII 
The  Bishops'  Bible 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.    The.  holie.  Bible,  conteyning 

1568 

This  is  the  handsomest  of  Eng- 

the olde  Testament  and  the 
newe.                         (W.) 

fol. 
London. 

lish  Bibles,  but  the  quality  of 
text  is  poor.     It  was  revised 

(Black 
letter.) 

by  several  dignitaries,  so  that 
it  was  popularly  known  as  the 
Bishops'    Bible.      Reprinted: 

1569,  1570,  1571,  1572,  1605. 

(W..D.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


337 


SECTION  IX 
Other  Bibles  for  the  British  Isles 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  Testament  newydd. 

1567 

The  Welsh  Bible  was  completed 

4to. 

in  1588  by  Barker  issuing  a 

London. 

folio  edition:  Y  Bibl  Cyssegr- 

lan,  sef  yr  Hen  Destament  a'r 

Newydd.                           (W.) 

2.  Tiomna  Nnadh. 

1602 

This  Irish  N  T  was  translated  by 

folio. 

William     Daniel,     Protestant 

Dublin. 

archbishop    of    Dub  1m,    and 

printed  in  the  native  charac- 

ter.   It  was  reprinted  in  1681, 
and  in  1686  the  O  T  was  issued 

in  similar  form.                (W.) 

3.  (Irish  Bible). 

1690 

A  reprint  in  Roman  type.     This 

was  again  reprinted  at  Glas- 

gow   in    1754    for    the    West 

Highlands.                        (W.) 

4.  Yn  Vible  Caskerick. 

1771 

The    Manx   O   T   with  Wisdom 

White- 

and  Ecclesiasticus.        (W.) 

haven 

5.  (Gaelic  Bible). 

1767-1802 

A  revision  for  the  Highlands,  by 
James  Stuart  of  Killin.  (W.) 

D.— SOME  IMPORTANT  CONTINENTAL  VERSIONS 

SECTION  I 
Early  Slavic  and  Prankish 


Name. 


Date. 


Remarks. 


1.  The  Slavonic  Version. 


879 


2.  The  Prankish  Version. 


3.  South  of  France. 


9th  cent. 


About 
12th  cent. 


Pope  John  VIII  sanctioned  the 
use  of  the  Slavonic.  Krasin- 
sky  hi  Maclear  Christian  Mis- 
sions in  the  Middle  Ages  286 
says:  "The  earliest  dated 
complete  MS  of  the  Gospels  is 
dated  1144  A.D.  ,  the  earliest 
MSS  of  the  whole  Bible  A.D. 
1499."  (W.) 

The  Slavonic  Version  is  not 
without  critical  value. — Scriv- 
ener Introduction  ii.  160-161. 
(D.) 

MS  at  St.  Gall.  (D.) 

A  translation  in  Latin  and 
German  of  Tatian's  Har- 
mony of  the  Gospels.  (W.) 

The  Gospels  and  several  books 
of  Scripture  translated  into 
one  of  the  dialects  of  the 
South  of  France  by  Peter 
Waldo  (mentioned  by  Moul- 
ton  History  38).  (D.) 


338 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  II 
Early  German 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  DieBibel(M.entelin). 
(W.) 

1465 
2  vols. 
fol. 

All    these   versions,    and    many 
other  editions,  appeared  while 
western  Christendom  was  one. 

Strasburg. 

It  is  a  grave  mistake  to  think 

that  there  were  no  vernacular 

versions  till  the  Reformation. 

2.  Die  duytsche  souter  (J. 

1480 

Jacobszoen).           (W.) 

8vo.    Delft. 

3.  De  Biblie  mit  vlitigher  ach- 

1494 

tinghe    recht    na    deme 

2  vols.  fol. 

latine   in   dudesck    auer- 

Lubeck. 

ghesettet;    mit    vorluch- 

tinge  unde  glose.  (Steffen 

Arndes.)                  (W.) 

4.  Der   Teutsch  Psalter 

1498 

(Schoensperger).    (W.) 

8vo.   Augs- 

burg. 

SECTION  III 
Early  French 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  Les    livres   de   I'ancien    & 

1475 

nouveau  Testaments,  his- 

fol.  Lyons. 

to  ire's    en    Frangois,   par 

frere  Julien  Macho.  (Guill. 

le  Roy.)                   (W.) 

2.  Le  Nouveau  Testament  et 

1475 

la  declaration  d  i  c  e  1  1  u  y 

fol.  Lyons. 

faicte    et    compose'e    par 

Julien   Macho    et   Pierre 

Farget(B.  Buyer).     (W.) 
3.  La  grande  Bible  en  Francois 
historiee.                 (W.) 

1500 
fol.  Lyons. 

4.  La  Bible  en  Francois 

1517 

(Verard).                 (W.) 

2  vols.    fol. 

Paris. 

SECTION  IV 
The  Versions  of  Luther  and  Others l 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  N  T  published  at  Witten- 
berg. 
2.  The  Pentateuch. 
3.  Historical  Books  and  Holy 
Writings. 

1522 

1523 
1524 

1  Particulars  in   this  section  are  taken  from  Moulton  History  39f.,  and 
Westcott  History  of  the  English  Bible  171,  386.  (D.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


339 


Title. 


Date. 


4.  The  Prophets.  1526 

5.  The  whole  Bible.     (Witten-         1534 

berg.) 

6.  Revised  version  thereof.  1541 

(D.) 

In  1534  Luther  completed  his  Bible  by  rendering  the  Apocrypha  from 
the  Vulgate.  The  whole  was  pirated  extensively,  but,  though  Luther 
complained  of  this,  he  had  used  the  work  of  Denk  and  Hetzer  without 
acknowledgment.  He  revised  down  to  1544-45.  (W.) 


Particulars. 


7.  Leo    Juda's  German  Bible. 


8.  Bibel  teutsch  der  ursprun- 
glichen  Hebreischen  und 
Griechischen  warheit  nach 
auffs  treuwlichest  verdol- 
metschet.  Froschauer,  Zu- 
rich. (W.) 


1525 
Zurich. 


1529 

1530 

Zurich. 


(2d    ed.    i 

1531 

Zurich.) 

1534 


It  was  really  the  basis  of  Cover- 
dale's  first  Bible.  (W.) 

The  first  complete  transla- 
tion into  a  modern  language 
from  originals,  published  at 
Zurich.  (W.) 

The  Worms  Bible.  (D.) 

Translation  by  Zwingli  and  his 
associates,  of  Luther's  N  T 
into  German-Swiss  dialect; 
the  Prophets  by  the  "preach- 
ers of  Zurich;"  the  Apocrypha 
by  Leo  Juda — generally  known 
as  the  "Bible  of  Zurich," 
where  it  was  published. 

(D.) 


SECTION  V 
French  Bibles 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  Le  Fevre  (Translator). 
(D.) 

2.  Olivetan. 
3.  A  revision  of  Olivetan. 

4.  Martin. 
5.   Osterwald. 

1530 
1534 

1535 
1588 

1707 
1744 

A  complete  Bible  mainly  from  the  Vulgate. 
Subsequent  French  versions  have  been 
more  or  less  dependent  on  this.        (D.) 
Le  Fevre  used  the  Revision  of  the  XIII 
Century  Version,  by  Jean  de  Rely;    the 
whole  Bible   was   issued  by   1534.   .    .    . 
This  is  really  the  basis  of  all  later  French 
versions,    and     had    some    influence    on 
Coverdale.                                             (W.) 
The  whole  Bible.                                     (D.) 
Revision  of   the    foremen  tioned  by  College 
of  Pastors  and  Professors  at  Geneva. 
(D.) 
Two  further  revisions  of  Olivetan,  which 
stand  high  in  the  esteem  of  French  Prot- 
estants.                                                  (D.) 

340 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


1. 


SECTION  VI 
Editions  of  the  Bible  in  Other  European  Languages 

In  Italian:   The  whole  Bible  by  Malermi  or  Malherbi,  1471,  Venice;  by 
Bruccioli,  1532,  Venice;  by  J.  Diodate,  1607.  (D.) 

2.  In  Spanish:   The  N  T  by  Enzinas,  1543,  Antwerp;   the  whole  Bible  by 

DeReynainl569;  by  Cypr.  de  Valera,  1602.  (D.) 

3.  In  Swedish:  A  Swedish  N  T  (1526)  and  Bible  (1541)  avowedly  taken  from 

Luther.  (D.) 

4.  In  various  languages:  In  1522  printed  versions  of  the  Scriptures  were  in 

circulation  in  Danish,  Dutch,  Bohemian,  Slavonic,  Russian,  and  the 
Spanish  dialect  of  Valencia.  (D.) 

E.— STANDARD  CATHOLIC  VERSIONS 

SECTION  I 
The  Rheims  and  Douay  Versions 1 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  New  Testament  of  lesus 

1582 

1582,  quarto    edition;    1600  (a 

Christ,  translated  faithfvlly 

4to. 

few    alterations    and    C9rrec- 

into  English  out  of  the 

Rheims. 

tions);     1621,    16mo  edition; 

authentical     Latin.  ...  In 

1633,  quarto  edition.     (D.) 

the  English  College  of 

Rhemes.                (W.,  B.) 

1589 

A  controversial  Protestant  re- 

fol. 

print. 

London. 

This  was  reprinted  in  1601, 

1617,  1633,  always  with  the 

Bishops'  Version,  and  evident- 

ly contributed  to  the  influence 

exercised  by  the  Rheims  Tes- 

tament on  King  James's  re- 

vision.                              (W.) 

2.  The  Holie  Bible,  faithfully 

1609 

The  two  volumes  were  printed 

translated  into  English  ovt 

and 

in  1609,  1610,  and  were  never 

of    the    avthentical    Latin, 
diligently  conferred  with  the 
Hebrew,   Greeke  and   other 

1610 
4to. 
Douay. 

completed  with  a  New  Testa- 
ment. .  .  .  The    Rouen    edi- 
tion ranges  well  with  that  of 

editions  in  diuers  languages, 

the  N  T  in  1633,  but  in  strict- 

with arguments,  etc.;  by  the 
English   College  of   Doway. 
Printed  at  Doway  by  Lau- 
rence Kellam,  at  the  signe  of 
the  Holie  Lambe,  MDCIX- 
X.                           (W.,  B.) 

ness  there  never  has  been  an 
edition  of  the  whole  Bible  in 
the  original  versions  of  Rheims 
and  Douay.                 .    (W.) 
Modernized    revisions    ap- 
peared    in      1738,     London; 

1788,    Liverpool;    1834,   Bos- 

ton.                                  (D.) 

1816-18 

The  O  T  follows  Challoner's  re- 

Liver- 

vision (see  below  both  in  text 

pool. 

and  notes).     The  N  T  is  the 

Rhemish    text    and    annota- 

tions.    It    is    known    as    the 

"7th  edition   of  the  original 

Rhemish  Version." 

1834 

Published   by   a  Protestant  as 

New 

"exactly    printed    from    the 

York. 

original  volume."            (D.) 

1  Particulars  are  taken  from  Mombert  English  Versions  325f.;  Newman 
Tracts,  Theological  and  Ecclesiastical  409f.;  Cotton  Editions  of  the  Bible; 
Shea  Bibliographical  Account  of  Catholic  Bibles. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


341 


SECTION  II 
Earlier  Revisions,  1718-1750 


Title 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  New  Testament  .  .  .  newly 

1718-19 

To    correct   old    language,   bad 

translated  out  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,   together  with  an- 
notations     by     C(ornelius) 

8vo. 
Dublin? 

spelling,  too  literal  translation, 
etc.,  in  the  original  editions, 
and  published  in  a  more  con- 

N (  a  r  y  )  ,      C(onsultissimse) 

venient  size.                    (D.) 

F(acultatis)         P(arisiensis) 

D(octor).                      (W.) 

1730 

By  Witham,  President  of  Douay 

College.      The    revision     was 

made  for   reasons  similar   to 

the  above.                        (D.) 

2    The  New   Testament.      Newly 

1749 

Challoner's  revision.     This  was 

revised  and  corrected  accord- 

12mo. 

a  new  departure  of  the  great- 

ing to   the  Clementine  edi- 
tion of  the  Scriptures. 

Dublin? 

est  importance,  initiating  the 
constant  revision  that  has  pro- 

(W.) 

ceeded  at  frequent  intervals. 

He  continued  this  course,  re- 

vising   and     republishing    in 

1750,  1752,  1764,  1772,  1777. 

Thousands    of    changes   were 

introduced,  especially  in  the 

edition    of    1752.      Collations 

may    be     seen     in    Newman 

Tracts  368-376.             (W.) 

3.  The  Holy  Bible,  translated 

1750 

The  reference  to  Douay  and  not 

from  the  Latin  Vulgate  .  .  . 
first  published  by  the  Eng- 
lish College  at  Doway,  Anno 

4  vols., 
12mo. 
Dublin 

Rheims  also,  justifies  the  re- 
mark that  this  is  only  an  O 
T.     An  edition  of  the  N  T  in 

1609.      Newly  revised,   and 

or 

the  same  year  ranges  well  with 

corrected,  according   to  the 

London? 

it.     This  is  the  text  now  al- 

Clementine   Edition    of    the 

ways  reprinted.              (W.) 

Scriptures.      With    annota- 

Edition of  the  whole  Bible, 

tions    for    clearing    up    the 

1750-63,    London,    with    re- 

principal difficulties  of  Holy 

visions   of   text   and   annota- 

Writ.                              (W.) 

tions.                                  (D.) 

4.  The  Holy  Bible,  translated 

17901 

A  reprint  of  the  edition  of  1763, 

from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  etc. 

4to. 

with    approbation    of    Arch- 

(W.) 

Phila- 

bishop Carroll  in  the  Synod  of 

delphia. 

1791.     The  first  approval  of 
the  whole  Bible  for  the  United 

States.                                (D.) 

Probably  the  first  complete 

Catholic  Bible  in  English.     It 

follows  Challoner  in  omitting 

the  Catholic  Apocrypha.  (W.) 

1796 

Revision  of  the  O  T.          (D.) 

Edin- 

burgh. 

»  A  Catholic  version  by  Geddes,  1792-97,  London:  The  Holy  Bible,  or  the 
Books  accounted  sacred,  etc.  Never  approved;  distinctly  disavowed  by  the 
Vicars-Apostolic,  who  in  lieu  of  it  promoted  the  1796—97  editions  of  the 
Challoner  at  Edinburgh.  (W.) 


342 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  III 
Revisions  by  MacMahon  and  Troy 


Title. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


1.  The  Holy  Bible. 


1783 
Dublin. 


Revision  of  N  T  by  MacMahon  with  formal 
approval  of  Archbishop  Carpenter. 

(D.) 

Later  editions  of  Challoner's  N  T  were 
published  in  America  as  follows:  1817, 
Georgetown;  1829  Philadelphia  (from  the 
text  of  1752;  1829  (text  of  1750)  Utica; 
1845,  New  York.  (D.) 

2.  The  following  revisions  were  made  by  MacMahon  with  the  approbation  of 
Archbishop  Troy  and  are  usually  referred  to  as  Troy's  Bible. 

(1)  The  Holy  Bible,      1791       Really  the  fifth  edition  of  the  O  T,  Douay, 

"fifth  edi-       4to.  Rouen,  Dublin,  and  Philadelphia  having 

tion."  Dublin.        preceded  it.     It  was  at  least  the  14th  of 

the  N  T  put  out  by  Catholics,  and  only  the 
second  of  the  whole  Bible.  (W.) 

(2)  The  above  edition  was  reprinted  in  1794,  Dublin;  1803,  Dublin;  1810, 

Dublin;  1805,  Philadelphia;  in  1816  and  1818,  Dublin  and  Cork; 
1820,  Dublin;  1824,  Philadelphia;  1837,  Baltimore;  and  1852, 
New  York;  1805,  Philadelphia.  The  whole  Bible,  known  as  "the 
first  American."  This  follows  the  text  of  1794.  (D.) 

The  edition  of  1824  was  published  with  the  approval  of  Dr. 
Conwell,  Bishop  of  Philadelphia;  the  edition  of  1837  (Baltimore) 
received  the  approbation  of  the  archbishop  and  bishops  of  the 
United  States  in  the  Provincial  Council  at  Baltimore  April  22, 
1837.  It  contains  Challoner's  notes.  (D.) 


SECTION  IV 

Revisions  Issued  Under  Authority  of  Prelates  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland  and  in  America 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Holy  Bible. 

1761 
5  vols. 
12mo. 
Edin- 
burgh. 

Issued   under    the    authority    of    Dr.  Hay, 
Vicar  Apostolic  in  Scotland.     This  edition 
was  reprinted:  1804-5,  Edinburgh;  1811, 
Dublin.     The    N     T,    1811     and     1814, 
Dublin;   1817,  Belfast.      The  text  of  the 
O  T   is   substantially   that  of   Challoner 
(Newman   Tracts  431).     The  N  T  some- 
times varies  from  Challoner's  edition  of 
1763-64.                                                  (D.) 
Revisions  were  issued  under  the  sanc- 
tion  of   Dr.   Gibson,  Vicar  Apostolic    of 
Northern  England;  fol.   1816-17,  Liver- 
pool; 1822-23,  London.     Newman  Tracts 
432  says  these  editions  are  "  taken  almost 
without  exception  from  Challoner's  latest 
editions."    He  makes  a  similar  statement 
concerning   the    edition    (1829,    London) 
sanctioned    by    Dr.    Bramston,    Vicar 
Apostolic.                                             (D.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


343 


Title. 

Dale. 

Particulars. 

2.  The  New  Testa- 

1815 

Sanctioned  by  Dr.  Poynter. 

ment  of  our  Lord 

Dublin. 

Often    reprinted.      The    "Roman    Catholic 

and  Savior  Jesus 

Bible  Society"  that  promoted  it,  though 

Christ,  translated 

formed  by  Bishop   Poynter  and  others, 

out  of  the  Latin 

died.                                                    .(W.) 

Vulgate;  and  dili- 

Subsequent editions  of  Poynter's  Bible  ap- 

gently compared 
with  the  original 

peared   as  follows;    1818,   Cork;    1823,  l 
1825,   1842,   London;    1826,  1834,   1835, 

Greek.     Stereo- 

1837, and  1840,  Dublin. 

typed    from    the 
edition  published 

The  edition  of  1826  (Dublin)  was  published 
at  the  expense  of  the  Commissioners  of 

by    authority    in 

Irish  education  with  the  sanction  of  the 

1749.              (W.) 

four  archbishops  of  Ireland               (D.) 

1  The  Holy  Bible  ....  4to,  Cork,  1818.     With  an  Appendix,  Errata  to 
the  Protestant  Bible  by  Ward,  first  published  1688.  (W.) 


SECTION  V 
Revisions  by  Dr.  Murray 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

The  Holy  Bible. 

1815- 
1847 

Revisions  by  Murray,  a  Catholic  theologian. 
The  text  of  the  N  T  follows  Challoner's 
early  editions  of  1749  and  1750.     Six  or 
seven  editions.  1815-47.                     (D.) 
Text  of  edition  of  1815  was  printed  in 
1833,  New  York  (D.),  and  reprinted  1844 
with  approval  of  Dr.  Hughes,  Bishop  of 
New  York.                                      (B.,  D.) 
Murray's  revision  was  approved  in  1839 
by  Dr.  Denvir,  Bishop  of  Down  and  Con- 
nor, Vicar  Apostolic.            (W.,  B.,  D.) 

SECTION  VI 
Revision  of  the  Gospels  by  Lingard 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

A  New  Ve  r  sion  of 
the  Four  Gospels 
with  Notes  Criti- 
cal and  Explana- 
tory by  a  Catholic 
(Lingard). 

1836 
8vo. 
London. 

Kenrick  styles  this  "new  and  elegant,"  the 
notes  "  few  but  luminous."                (W.) 

344 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


SECTION  VII 
Revisions  by  Bishop  (Archbishop)  Kenrick 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Four  Gospels 

1849 

The  Dedication  "To  the  Hierarchy  of  the 

translated       from 

United  States  assembled  in  the  Seventh 

the  Latin  Vulgate 

Provincial     Council     of    Baltimore,"     is 

and  diligently 

dated  May  1,   1849.     The  revision  was 

compared    with 
the   Original 

based  on  Lingard.                              (W.) 

Greek  Text.   .  .  . 

By  the  Rt.  Rev. 

Francis     Patrick 

Kenrick,    Bishop 

of  Philadelphia. 

2.  The  New  Testament. 

1851 

In  1851  the  N  T  was  completed;    in  1857 

Translated    from 

and 

followed  the  poetical  books  of  the  O  T; 

the    Latin    Vul- 

1862 

in  1859  Job  and  the  Prophets;    in  1860 

gate,  etc.  .  .  .  By 
Francis  P.  Ken- 

Balti- 
more. 

the   Pentateuch;    in    1860    also   the   his- 
torical books.                                (W.,  B.) 

rick,  Archbishop 

(2ded.  1862.)                                  (B.) 

of  Baltimore. 

SECTION  VIII 
Revision  Approved  by  Drs.  Walsh  and  Wiseman 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

The  Holy  Bible.   .    .   . 

1847 
London 
and 
Derby. 

An   edition    following   the    text   of   Troy's 
edition  of  1803  with  slight  variations. 
(D.) 

SECTION  IX 
Revision  by  the  Rev.  G.  L.  Haydock  and  Other  Divines 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Holy  Bible  .  .  . 
(Haydock). 

1814 
fol. 
Manches- 
ter and 
Dublin. 

This  edition  was  contemplated  as  early  as 
1806.  ...  It  has  been  permanently  suc- 
cessful. (W.)  Subsequent  editions  ap- 
peared as  follows:  1822,  1  1824,  Dublin; 
1825,  Philadelphia;  1845-48,  Edinburgh 
and  London;  1852-56,  New  York;  1853, 
London  and  New  York. 

JTwo   new   editions  (1822,  1824,  Dublin)  carelessly  edited  and  full  of 
errors.  (D.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


345 


Title. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


1852 

4to. 

New 

York. 


A  republication  of  the  edition  of  1811 .  (D.) 
A  magnificent  edition  with  reprinted 
commendations.  (W.) 


2.  The  Holy  Bible, 

translated  from 
the  Latin  Vul- 
ite  .  .  .  (Douay 
B)  .  .  .  with 
useful  notes,  crit- 
ical,  historical, 
controversial, 
and  explanatory, 
selected  from  the 
most  eminent 
c  o  m  m  e  n  tators, 
and  the  most  able 
and  judicious 
critics.  (B.) 

3.  The  Holy  Bible  .  .  .      1853      An  edition  of  Haydock  with  a  statement 

(W.)        London        that  the  text  is  "carefully  collated  with 
and  New      that  of  original  editions  and  annotations 
York.         abridged  by  the  Rev.  F.  C.  Husenbeth, 
Canon  of  the  English  Chapter  and  pub- 
lished with  the  sanction  of  my  own  eccle- 
siastical   superior,   the    Right   Rev.  Dr. 
Wareing,  and  with  the  concurrent  appro- 
bation and  sanction  of  all  the  Right  Rev. 
Vicars  Apostolic  of  Great  Britain." 

(D.) 

In  addition,  the  prelates  of  the  Church  in  America  mentioned  below  gave 
their  approbation. 

John  B.  Purcell,       Archbishop  of  Cincinnati. 

Peter  Richard  Kenrick,    "  "    St.  Louis. 

John  McCloskey,       Bishop  of  Albany. 

John  H.  Neumann,  Philadelphia. 

John  B.  Fitzpatrick,  Boston. 

Peter  Paul  Lefeyere,  Detroit. 

Morton  J.  Spalding,  Louisville. 

Richard  Pius  Miles,  Nashville. 

John  Joseph  Chanche,    '        "  Natchez, 
and  the  Very  Rev.  Father  Matthew. 

This  information  is  obtained  from  a  copy  of  the  Bible  in  the  College  of  St. 
Francis  Xavier,  N.  Y.  (D.) 

4.  It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  that  the  Rheims  and  Douay  Bible  has  been 

translated  for  residents  in  the  United  States  as  follows :  1824,  New  York, 
Spanish;  1850,  New  York,  German;  The  New  Testament,  1810, 
Boston,  French;  1819,  New  York,  Spanish;  1837,  New  York,  Spanish; 
1838,  New  York,  French;  1839,  New  York,  Portuguese;  1852,  New 


York,  German. 
6.  The  Four  Gospels,  a  new  trans- 
lation from  the  Greek  direct, 
with  reference  to  the  Vulgate 
and  the  Syriac  Versions. 
6.  The  Holy  Bible,  translated  from 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  etc.     New 
edition.                              (B.) 

1898 

1899 
New 
York. 

(D.) 
By  F.  A.  Spencer  (O.  P.). 
(B.) 

Published  with  the  approbation 
of  His  Eminence  James  Car- 
dinal Gibbons,  Archbishop  of 
Baltimore.                         (B.) 

346 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


F.— THE  ENGLISH  AUTHORIZED  AND  REVISED 

VERSIONS 

SECTION  I 

Editions  of  King  James's  Version 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  Holy  Bible,  Con- 
teyning  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  the  New: 

1611 
fol. 
London. 

"  Imprinted  at  London  by  Robert  Barker, 
Printer  to  the  Kings  most  Excellent 
Maiestie."                                        (W.) 

Newly      translated 

(Black 

The  Standard  or  primary  Edition. 

out  of  the  Originall 

letter.) 

(D.) 

tongues  :     &     with 

the  former  Trans- 

lations diligently 

compared    and   re- 

uised,  by  his  Ma- 

iesties  speciall  C6- 

mandement.     A  p  - 

pointed  to  be  read 

in  Churches. 

(WM  B.) 
2.  The  Holy  Bible. 

1638 
fol. 

"The  authentique  corrected  Cambridge 
Bible"  (Kilburne,  1658).     This  was  in- 

Cam- 

tended to  be  the  standard  text;    but 

bridge. 

the  subsequent  troubles  caused  the  fact 

to  be  obscured.                                 (W.) 

3.  The  Holy  Bible.  .  .  . 

1701 

Contains  Bishop  Ussher's  chronology  fix- 

London. 

ing  the  creation  of  the  world  at  4004 

B.C.  Known  as  "Bishop  Lloyd's  Bible." 

(D.) 

4.  The  Holy  Bible,  con- 

1762 

Edited  by  Dr.  Paris  adding  383  marginal 

taining  the  Old  and 

4to. 

notes.                                                  (D.) 

New     Testaments. 

Cam- 

This was  intended  as  a  standard  edi- 

bridge. 

tion.    Spelling,  punctuation  and  italics 

were  attended  to;    marginal  references 

were  formally  adopted,  a  style  of  note 

introduced  by  John  Canne  during  the 

Civil  Wars;     dates   and   chronological 

notes,  drawn  up  by  Bishop  Lloyd  at  the 

request  of  the  Southern  Convocation  on 
the  basis  of  Archbishop  Ussher's  cal- 

culations, were  now  revised  from  his 

London    edition    of    1701  ;      marginal 

notes  were  at  last  admitted.     The  folio 

edition    of    this    year    was    nearly    all 

burned  at  the  printer's,  and  an  Oxford 

editor  of   1769   appropriated   most  of 

the   improvements,   without  acknowl- 

edgment.                                          (W.) 

5.  The  Holy  Bible.  .  .  . 

1769 

Blayney's    edition    adding    76   marginal 

Oxford. 

notes.     The  text  now  in  use  is  taken 

from  this  edition.                             (D.) 

The  improvements  of  this  standard 

text  were  largely  derived  from  the  edi- 

6. The  Cambridge  Para- 

1873 

tion  of  1762.                                (W.) 

graph   Bible   of  the 

Cam- 

authorized  English 

bridge. 

version. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


347 


SECTION  II 
Early  American  Bibles 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  New  Testament,  .  .  .  Trans-  1       1661 

The  Eliot  New  Testament. 

latedinto  the  Indian  Language. 

Cambridge, 

Mass. 

2.  The  Holy  Bible:  containing  the 

1663 

The  Eliot  Bible. 

Old   Testament  and   the   New. 

Cambridge, 

Translated    into     the     Indian 

Mass. 

Language,  and  ordered  to  be 

printed  by  the  Commissioners 

of  the  United  Colonies  in  New 

England.     At  the  Charge,  and 

with  the  Consent  of  theCorpora- 

tion  in  England  For  the  Propa- 

gation of  the  Gospel  amongst 

the  Indians  in  New  England. 

3.  Biblia,  das  ist  Die  Heilige  Schrift. 
.  .  .  Nach  der  Deutschen  Ueber- 

1743 
Long  4to. 

The  Saur  Bible. 

setzung  D.  Martin  Luther's. 

German- 

town. 

4.  The  New  Testament. 

1777 

The    Aitken    New    Testa- 

Small 

ment. 

12mo. 

Philadel- 

phia. 

5.  The  Holy  Bible,   containing  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments:  new- 

1781-82 
12mo. 

The  Aitken  Bible. 
Directly  after  the  title 

ly  translated  out  of  the  original 

2    vols.    or 

were  printed  Resolutions 

tongues,  and  with  the  former 
translations     diligently     com- 
pared and  revised. 

one. 
Philadel- 
phia. 

of  Congress  in  1782,  ap- 
R  roving,     recommending 
5r  sale,  and  authorizing 

Aitken    to  publish   the 

recommendation.  (W.) 

f>.  The  Holy  Bible.  .  .  .  translated 

1808 

The    first    version    of    the 

from    the    Greek    by    Charles 
Thomson,  late  Secretary  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States. 

8vo.  4  vols. 
Philadel- 
phia. 

Septuagint    in     English. 
Lately  reprinted.   (W.) 

(W.) 

SECTION  III 
The  Revised  Version 


Title. 

Date. 

Particulars. 

1.  The  New  Testament  .  .  .  revised 
1881.  (W.) 

2.  The  Holy  Bible,  containing  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments;  translated  out  of 
the  original  tongues,  being  the  ver- 
sion set  forth  A.D.  1611  compared 
with  the  most  ancient  authorities 
and  revised  A.D.  1881-85. 

1881 
12mo. 
Cambridge. 
1885 
Oxford 
and 
Cambridge. 

The  English  Revision. 

348 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Title. 


Date. 


Particulars. 


3.  The  Apocrypha  translated  out  of  the        1895 

Greek  and   Latin   tongues  .  .  .  re-      Oxford 
vised  A.D.  1894.  and 

Cambridge 

4.  The  Holy [Bible,  being  the  revised  ver-        1898 

sion  with  the  readings  and  render-      Oxford 
ings  preferred  by  the  American  re-         and 
vision  companies  incorporated  in  the  Cambridge, 
text,  and  with  copyright  marginal 
references. 

5.  The  New  Covenant  commonly  catted        1900 

the  New  Testament.     Newly  edited  New  York, 
by  the  New  Testament  members  of 
the  American  Revision  Committee. 
(W.) 

6.  The  Holy  Bible  .  .  .  being  the  ver-        1901 

sion  set  forth  A.D.  1611  compared  New  York, 
with  the  most  ancient  authorities 
and  revised  A.D.  1881-85.  Newly 
edited  by  the  American  Revision 
Committee  A.D.  1901.  Standard 
edition.  (W.,  B.) 


SECTION  IV 

Semi-Private  Versions 

Every  few  years  some  single  scholar  has  published  a  revision,  or  a  new 
version,  of  some  part  of  the  Bible.  The  names  of  Alford,  Webster, 
Sharp,  Ellicott,  James  Murdock,  Julia  Smith,  will  illustrate  the  great 
variety  of  aim  and  value.  Four  recent  publications  may  deserve 
notice:  (W.) 

1.  1865  A.D.  [but  dated  in  Hebrew  fashion,  5625.]     The  Twenty-four  books 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures:  carefully  translated  according  to  the  Massoretic 
text,  after  the  best  Jewish  authorities.  By  Isaac  Leeser.  A  revision 
of  a  work  which  appeared  first  in  1854  at  Philadelphia.  Text  arranged 
in  the  Hebrew  divisions;  a  few  notes  added.  (W.) 

2.  1865.     The  New  Testament.     American  Bible  Union  Version,  also  begun 

in  1854.     This  was  again  revised  after  1883.  (W.) 

3.  1877.     Revised  English  Bible.     The  Religious  Tract  Society  published  an 

edition  with  emendations  by  four  divines.  This  edition  is  a  step 
further  in  the  same  direction.  (W.) 

4.  1902.   The   Twentieth   Century  New   Testament.     Not  a  revision  of  any 

preceding  version,  but  a  translation  into  modern  English  made  from  the 
original  Greek,  Westcott  and  Hort's  text.  Instalments  began  in  1898, 
and  a  revision  has  appeared  more  recently.  It  was  made  by  about 
twenty  persons,  including  graduates  of  several  universities  and  members 
of  various  sections  of  the  Christian  Church.  Their  names  are  as  yet 
unknown.  (W.) 


PART  II  * 

A. — WORKS  ON  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM. 

B. — WORKS  ON  THE  CANON. 

C. — WORKS  ON  INTRODUCTION. 

D. — POINTS    IN    DISPUTE   BETWEEN   ROMAN   CATHOLICS    AND 

PROTESTANTS. 

E. — HISTORICAL  AND  BIOGRAPHICAL  WORKS. 
F. — WORKS  ON  THE  STANDARD  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  VERSIONS. 
G. — BOOKS  ON  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE  (PROTESTANT  VERSIONS). 
H. — WORKS  ON  REVISION. 


PART   II 

A.— WORKS  ON  TEXTUAL  CRITICISM 

SECTION  I 
The  Greek  and  Hebrew  Text 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.  1746 
2.  1753 

3.  1770 

4.  1854 
5.  1871 
6  1871 

7.  1880 

Houbigant    (Rom. 
Cath.). 
Kennicott,  B. 

Kennicott,  B. 

Tregelles,  S.  P. 
Tischendorf,  C. 
Burgon,  J.  W. 

Burgon,  J.  W.,  and  E. 
Miller. 

Prolegomena  (to  a   new  edition   of    the 
Hebrew  Text).                                    (W.) 
The  State  of  the  Printed  Hebrew   Text  of 
the  Old  Testament  Considered.     Oxford. 
(W.,  D.) 
Ten  Annual  Accounts  of  the  Collation  of 
Hebrew  Manuscripts  of  the  Old   Testa- 
ment.    Oxford.                                     (D.) 
Account  of  the  Printed  Text  of  the  Greek 
New  Testament.                                  (W.) 
The  Sinaitic  Bible,  its  discovery,  publication, 
etc.     Leipzig.                                        (B.) 
The  Last  Twelve  Ver  :es  of  St.  Mark  vin- 
dicated against  recent  critical  objectors. 
Oxford  and  London.                           (D.) 
The  Causes  of  the  Corruption  in  the  Tradi- 
tional Text.                                            (B.) 

1  In  addition  to  the  following  specific  publications  there  may  be  consulted 
under  the  various  sections  relevant  articles  in  the  Dictionaries  of  Hastings 
(1902),  Cheyne  (1903),  and  Schaff-Herzog  (1907 

349 


350 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Date. 


8.  1881 

9.  1886 

10.  1894 

11.  1894 


12.  1896  Bur 

13.  1897 


14.  1898 

1.5.  1901 

16.  1901 

17.  1903 


Author. 


Westcott  and  Hort. 
Miller,  E. 
Harris,  J.  Rendel. 
Scrivener-Miller. 


irgon,  J.  W.,  and  E, 
Miller. 
Copinger,  W.  A. 


Blass,  Fr. 
Kenyon,  F.  G. 

Nestle,  E. 
Kenyon,  F.  G. 


Particulars. 


The  New  Testament  in  Greek.  Volume  two 
began  a  new  era  in  textual  criticism. 

A  Guide  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New 
Testament.  London.  (D.) 

Four  Lectures  on  the  Western  Text.  Lon- 
don. (B.) 

A  Plain  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament.  4th  ed.  London,  New 
York  and  Cambridge.  Indispensable  for 
serious  work.  (W.) 

The  Traditional  Text  of  the  Holy  Gospels. 
London.  (B.) 

The  Bible  andits  Transmission,  an  historical 
and  bibliographical  view  of  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  Texts  and  other  versions. 
London.  (W.,  D.) 

Magnificently  illustrated  with  fac- 
similes. (W.) 

Philology  of  the  Gospels  (establishing  the 
true  text).  London.  (B.) 

Handbook  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament.  London  and 
New  York.  (W.,  B.) 

Introduction  to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the 
Greek  New  Testament.  Theological 
Translation  Library.  Vol.  XIII. 

(B.,  D.) 

Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts, 
being  a  history  of  the  text  and  its  trans- 
lations. 4th  ed.  London.  (W.,  B.) 


SECTION  II 
Works  on  the  Vulgate  and  Old  Latin  Versions 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.  1655 

Bois,  J. 

Collatio  Veteris  Interprets  cum  Beza 

aliisque  recentioribus  collatio  in  guatuor 

Evangeliis  et  Actis  Apostolorum.     Lon- 

don. 

"The   first  who  pointed  out  the  real 

2.  1824 

Van    Ess,    L.     (Rom. 

value  of"  the  Vulgate.                       (W.) 
Pragmatisch-Kritische  Geschichte  der  Vul- 

Cath.) 

gata.     Tubingen.                                 (W.) 

3.  1827 
4.  1845 

Brunati,  J. 
Migne,  J.  P. 

De  Nomine,  Auctore,  etc.  (Dissertations  on 
the  Name,  Author,  Revisions  and  Authen- 
ticity of  the  Vulgate.)     Vienne.       (B.) 
Works  of  St.  Jerome,  in  Patrologice  Latinos 

Cursus  Completus.     (A  complete  collec- 

tion of  the  works  of  the  Fathers.)     Vols. 

XXII-XXX. 

5.  1868 

Kaulen,    Fr.     (Rom. 

Geschichte  der  Vulgata.     Mainz.        (W.) 

Cath.) 

6.  1875 
7.  1879 

Ronsch,  H. 
Ziegler,  L. 

ItalaundVulgata.                                    (W.) 
Die     lateinischen    Bibeliibersetzungen   vor 

Hieronymus  und  die  Itala  des  Augustinus. 
Munich. 

"Stoutly  asserts  the  multiplicity  of 
Latin  translations."                           (W.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


351 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

8.   1887 
9.  1892 

10.  1893 
11.  1896 

Berger,  S.(Rom.  Cath.) 
Copinger,  W.  A. 

Berger,    S.     (Rom. 
Cath.) 
Burkitt,  F.  C. 

De  I'Histoire  de  la  Vulgate   en  France. 
Paris.                                                      (W.) 
Incunabula  Biblica.     London.     Extremely 
valuable  for  the   Latin    printed    Bibles. 
(W.) 
Histoire  de  la  Vulgate  pendant  les  premiers 
siecles  du  moyen  age.                         (W.) 
The  Old   Latin  and   the   Itala   (Texts  and 
Studies).                                                (W.) 

B.— WORKS  ON  THE  CANON 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1520 

Andreas  Bodenstein  of 

De  Canonicis  Scnpturis.                      (W.) 

Carlstadt, 

2.     1865 

Stuart,  Moses. 

A  Critical  History  and  Defence  of  the  Old 

Testament  Canon.     Andover.            (B.) 

3.     1880 

Davidson,  S. 

The  Canon  of  the  Bible,  its  formation,  his- 

tory and  fluctuations     London.  (W.,  D.) 

4.     1887 

Reuss,  Edward. 

History  of  the  Canon  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
in  the   Christian  Church,   translated    by 

David  Hunter.     Edinburgh.     (W.,  D.) 

5.     1892 

Ryle,  H.  E. 

Th  e  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.     An  Essay 

on  the  gradual  growth  and  formation  of 

the  Hebrew  Canon  of  Scripture.     London, 

(W.,  D.) 

6.     1895 

Wildeboer,  G. 

The  Origin  of  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 

ment.    Translated  by  B.  W.  Bacon  and 

edited  by  F.  Morse.     London.         (D.) 

7.     1901 

Peters,  J.  P. 

The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholarship. 

London,  1901.                                       (D.) 

8.     The  following  works  deal  specifically  with  the  New  Testament  Canon: 

(1)1881 

Westcott,  B.  F. 

A  General  Survey  of  the  History  of  the  Canon 

of  the  New  Testament.                        (B  ) 

(2)  1884 

Mitchell,  E.  C. 

A   Guide  to  the  Study  of  the  Authenticity, 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament. 

(3)  1904 

Moore,  E.  C. 

(D.) 
The  New  Testament  in  the  Christian  Church 

(on  the  Canon).     New  York.         (D.) 

C.— WORKS  ON  INTRODUCTION 

SECTION  I 
Protestant  Writers 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.  1878 
2.  1882 

Wellhausen,  J. 
Blunt,  J.  H. 

Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (4th  ed. 
of  Bleek).                                            (W  ) 
A  Key  to  the  Knowledge  and  Use  of  the  Holy 
Bible.     New  York.                             (D  ) 

352 


BIBLE   VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Date. 

Author, 

Particulars. 

3.  1883 

Ladd,  G.  T. 

The  Doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  a  critical, 
historical  and  dogmatic  inquiry  into  the 
origin  and  nature  of  the  Old  and  New 

Testaments.    2  vols.     New  York.    (B.) 

4.  1887 

Briggs,  C.  A. 

Biblical  Study,  its  principles,  methods  and 

history.     2d  ed.     New  York.            (B.) 

5.  1888 

Ladd,  G.  T. 

What  is  the  Bible  f     New  York.         (B.) 

6.  1888 

Weiss,  Bernhard. 

A  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 

ment !  (Transl.).  2  vols.   London.     (W.) 

7.  1889 

Smyth,  J.  P. 

Th  e  Old  Documents  and  the  New  Bible.     2d 

ed.     London  and  Dublin.          (W.,  D.) 

8.  1892 

Cheyne,  T.  K. 

Aids    to    the    Devout    Study    of    Criticism. 

London.                                                  (D.) 

9.  1893 

Maclear,  G.  F. 

Helps  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible.     London. 

(D.) 

10.  1896 

Kirkpatrick,  A.  F. 

The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testament. 

London.                                                  (D.) 

11.  1897 

Driver,  S.  R. 

An   Introduction  to   the  Literature   of   the 

Old  Testament.     London.                  (D.) 

12.  1898 

Green,  W.  H. 

General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Canon.     New  York.            (W.,  D.) 

13.  1899 

Briggs,  C.  A. 

General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy 

Scripture.     New  York.                     (W.) 

14.  1900 

Swete,  Henry  Barclay. 

An   Introduction  to  the  Old   Testament  in 

Greek.     Cambridge.                            (W.) 

15.  1903 

Green,  W.  H. 

General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

The  Text.     New  York.                       (D.) 

16.   1904 

Julicher,  A. 

An    Introduction    to    the    New     Testament 

(Transl.).    London. 

17.  1907 

Zahn,  Theodor. 

An    Introduction    to    the    New    Testament 

(Transl.).    3  vols.    Edinburgh. 

SECTION  II 
Roman  Catholic  Writers 


Date. 


Author. 


Particulars. 


1.  1685  Simon,  Richard  (Priest  Histoire  Critique  du   Vieux   Testament 

of  the  Congregation      (Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament). 

of  the  Oratory.)  Rotterdam.     t  (B.) 

Similar  Critical  Histories  followed  from 
his  pen,  on  the  text  of  the  N  T,  1689;  a 
version  of  the  N  T,  1690;  principal  com- 
mentators of  the  N  T,  1693.  (W.) 

Gigot  claims  that  "  scholars  of  our  cen- 
tury who  apply  historical  and  critical 
methods  of  investigation  to  the  various  de- 
partments of  human  knowledge,  willingly 
ascribe  to  Richard  Simon  the  honor  of 
having  been  the  first  to  inaugurate  the 
method  according  to  which  the  questions 
introductory  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  should  be  handled."  (W.) 

2.  1839  Canones  et  Decreta,  etc.     (Canons  and  De- 

crees of  the  Holy  Ecumenical  Council  of 
Trent.)     Leipzig.  (B.) 

3.  1816  Van  Ess,  Leander.          Pragmatica  doctt.  Cath.   Trid.   circa   Vulg. 

decreti  sensum.     Sulzbach.  (W.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


353 


Date.    | 


Author. 


Particulars. 


4.     1848  Waterworth,  J. 


5.  1853  Dixon,  Joseph.  (Pro- 
fessor of  Sacred 
Scripture  and  He- 
brew, Archbishop  of 
Armagh  and  Primate 
of  all  Ireland.) 
1886  Lamy,  T.  J. 


6. 

7.     1891 


Comely,  Rudolph,  S.J. 


8.  1897  Breen,  A.  E. 

9.  1901 


Gigot,  Francis  E.,  S.S., 
Professor  of  Sacred 
Scripture  in  St. 
Mary's  Seminary, 
Baltimore,  Md. 


The  Canons  and  Decrees  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  New  York  and  London.  (D.) 

(A  translation   by  T.  A.  Buckley  ap- 
peared in  1851.)  (W.) 

A.  General  Introduction  to  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures. First  American  edition  carefully 
revised  from  the  Dublin  edition.  Balti- 
more. 2  vols  in  one.  (B.) 


Introductio  in  Sacram  Scripturam.  Mech- 
lin. (D.) 

Historical  et  criticoe  Introductions  in  U.  T. 
libros  sacros  Compendium  S.  Theologise 
auditoribus  accommodatum.  Editio  al- 
tera,  commentariolo  de  inspiratione  aucta 
cum  approbatione  superiorum.  Paris. 

(W.) 

This  book  has  been  drawn  upon  most  ex- 
tensively for  Catholic  witness  to  facts.  It 
came  out  under  the  seal  of  the  Society  of 
Jesus  and  received  the  imprimatur  of  the 
Cardinal  Archbishop  of  Paris.  (W.) 

A.  General  and  Critical  Introduction  to  the 
Study  of  Holy  Scripture.  Rochester, 
N.  Y.  (W.) 

General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Second  and  revised 
edition.  New  York,  Cincinnati,  Chicago. 

(W.,  B.) 

The  first  edition,  1899,  differed  chiefly  in 
arrangement.  This  bears  the  imprimatur 
of  the  Archbishop  of  New  York.  Con- 
stant and  adequate  references  are  made 
to  books  of  larger  size,  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant.  This  work  has  been  taken 
in  the  essay  by  W.  as  giving  the  Catholic 
testimony  on  most  litigated  facts,  with 
care  not  to  quote  as  Gigot  merely  what  he 
in  turn  quotes  from  Protestants,  without 
express  notice.  (W.) 


SECTION  III 
Materials  Relative  to  Papal  Sanction 


Date. 


Particulars. 


879  Pope  John  VIII  sanctioned  the  use  of  the  Slavonic  version:  "  Jube- 
mus  ut  in  omnibus  Ecclesiis  propter  majorem  honorificentiam 
evangelium  Latine  legatur,  et  post,  Slayonica  lingua  translatum 
in  auribus  populi  Latina  verpa  non  intelligentis  annuncietur, 
sicut  in  quibusdam  ecclesiis  fieri  videatur."  Krasinski  in  Maclear's 
Christian  Missions:  280.  (W.) 

2.  1875  Pope  Pius  IX;  Encyclical  and  Syllabus.  (W.) 

3.  1893  Pope  Leo  XIII;  Providentissimus  Deus.  (W.) 

4.  1902  Pope  Leo  XIII:    The  Study  of  the  Scriptures.     Apostolic  Letter  of 

His  Holiness  Pope  Leo  XIII,  appointing  the  Commission  for 
promoting  the  Study  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Translated  in  the 
Catholic  Pulpit,  November,  1902,  and  published  in  London,  New 
York,  and  Sydney.  (W.) 


354 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


D.— POINTS    IN   DISPUTE   BETWEEN   ROMAN  CATHO- 
LICS  AND    PROTESTANTS 

SECTION  I 
General  Works 


Date. 

Author, 

Particulars. 

1.     1870 
2.     1900 

Dollinger,  J.  J.  I. 
Daubney,  W.  H. 

The    Pope    and    the    Council.     Authorized 
translation  from   the  German.     Boston. 
(B.) 
The  Use  of  the  Apocrypha  in  the  Christian 
Church.     London.     16mo.                (B.) 

SECTION  II 

Works  Dealing  Especially  uvith  the  Roman  Catholic  Contention 
on  the  Canon,  the  Vulgate,  etc. 

(/)  The  Catholic  View 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1884 
2.     1885 

a     1899 

Addis,  W.  E.,   and 
Thomas  Arnold. 
Waterworth,  J. 

Mackey. 

Catholic   Dictionary:    article,   the  Vulgate, 
849-858.                                                 (B.) 
The  Faith  of  Catholics  confirmed  by  Scrip- 
ture and  attested  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
first  five  centuries,  with  preface  by  Mon- 
signor  Capel.     London  and  New  York. 
(D.) 
Library  of  St.  Francis  de  Sales.     Vol.  III., 
Part  II.,  pp.  87-142.     London  and  New 
York                                                        (D.) 

(II)  Works  that  Contest  the  Catholic  View 


Date. 
1.     1600 

2.     1672 

3.     1845 
4.     1855 

5.     1879 
6.     1896 

Author. 

Particulars. 

James,  Thomas. 
Cosin  John. 

Whitaker,  W.  A. 
Robins,  S. 

Stearns,  E.  J. 
Spencer,  J.  A. 

Bellum  papale,  seu  concordia  discors  Sixti 
V.  et  dementis  VIII.  circa  Hieronymia- 
nam  editionem.                                    (W.) 
Scholastical  History   of  the  Canon   of  the 
Holy   Scripture.     "Still    worth    reading, 
especially  as  between  the  Protestant  and 
Romish  canon."                                  (W.) 
Disputation  on  Holy  Scripture  against  the 
Papists.     Cambridge.                         (D.) 
The  Whole  Evidence  Against  the  Claims  of 
the   Roman    Catholic    Church,    Ch.    vii. 
On  the  Council  of  Trent  and  Canon  of 
Scripture.     London.                           (D.) 
The  Faith  of  Our  Forefathers.     New  York, 
(D.) 
Papalism  and  Catholic    Truth    and    Right. 
New  York.     Part  II.,  pp.  71-81.     (D.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


355 


SECTION  III 
Bible-reading  by  the  Laity 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1883 

Wetzer  and  Welte. 
(Rom.  Cath.) 

Kirchenlexicon  (a  Church  Dictionary), 
edited  by  Hergenrothe  and  Kauler:  ar- 
ticle, "  Bible-reading  by  the  Laity,"  Vol. 
I.  Freiburg  in  Breisgau.  (B.) 

E.— HISTORICAL  AND  BIOGRAPHICAL  WORKS 

SECTION  I 

General 


Date. 
1.     1868 
2.     1888 
3.     1888 
4.     1895 

Author. 

Particulars. 

Blunt,  J.  H. 
Fisher,  G.  P. 
Fisher,  G.  P. 
Lumby,  J.  R.  (ed.). 

The  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England. 
London,  Oxford  and  Cambridge.     (B.) 
History    of    the    Christian   Church.     New 
York.                                                       (B.) 
History   of  the  Reformation.     New   York. 
(B.) 
Chronicon,     Henrici     Knighton.     2     vols. 
London.                                                  (B.) 

SECTION  II 
Wyclif 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1820 

2.     1831 
3.     1832 
4.     1851 
5.     1880 
6.     1900 

Lewis,  John. 

Vaughan,  Robert. 
Foxe. 
Forshall  and  Madden. 
Storrs,  R.  S. 
Trevelyan,  G.  M. 

The  History  of  the  Life  and  Sufferings  of 
the  Reverend  and  Learned  John  Wyclif, 
D.D.,   Warden  of  Canterbury  Hall  arid 
Professor    of    Divinity   in   Oxford,    etc. 
Oxford.                                          (B.,  D.) 
Life  and  Opinions  of  John  Wyclif.     2  vols. 
2d  ed.     London.                                  (B.) 
Acts  and  Monuments   (Book  IX.,  Sec.   1, 
Wyclif).    Philadelphia.                     (D.) 
Preface  to  their  edition  of  the  Bible  trans- 
lated by  Wyclif  and  his  followers.     (D.) 
John  Wyclif  and  the  First  English  Bible. 
New  York.                                          (B.) 
England  in  the  Age  of  Wy  cliff  e.     3d    ed. 
London.                                                (B.) 

356 


BIBLE  VERSIONS    COMPARED 


SECTION  III 
Tyndale 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1832 
2.     1871 

3.     1886 
4.     1894 

Foxe. 
Demaus,  R. 

Demaus,  R. 
Jacobs. 

Acts  and  Monuments   (Book   IX.,   Sec.   2, 
Tyndale).     Philadelphia.                  (D.) 
William  Tyndale.     A  biography.     A  con- 
tribution to  the  early  history  of  the  English 
Bible.     London.                                    (B.) 
Edited  by  R.  Lovett.     London.         (D.) 
The  Lutheran  Movement  in  England.  Phila- 
delphia.                                                 (W.) 

SECTION  IV 
Coverdale  and  Rogers 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1838 

2.     184G 
3.     1861 

Pearson,  G. 
Chester,  J.  L. 

Memorial  of  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in 
God,  Myles  Coverdale,  who  first  translated 
the  whole  Bible  into  English.     London. 
(W.,  B.) 
Remains  of  Myles  Coverdale,  edited  for  the 
Parker  Society.     Cambridge.            (B.) 
John   Rogers,    the   Compiler    of   the   First 
Authorized  English  Bible.     London. 
(B.) 

SECTION  V 
Reformation  Period,  Roman  Catholic  Writers 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.     1676 

Sarpi,  Paolo. 

Fra  Paolo  Sarpi:  Istoria  del  Concilia  Tri- 

dentino.     (Translation  by  Sir  N.  Brent.) 

"  Liberal,  almost  semi-Protestant."     (W.) 

2.     1887 

Bellarmine,  R.  (Cardi- 
nal). 

Die  Selbstbiocjraphie  des  Cardinals  Bellar- 
mine,   lateinisch    und    deutsch,   mit   ge- 

schichtlichen  Erlauterungen.     J.  J.  I.  von 

Dollinger  und  F.  H.  Reusch.         Bonn. 

(B.) 

3.     1897 

Gasquet,  F.  A.  (D.D., 

The  Old   English  Bible,   and  other  Essays. 

O.S.B.). 

London.                                           (W.,  B.) 

Unconvincing  in  its  main  contention. 

(W.) 

4.     1904 

Reid,  G.  J. 

The  English  Bible  before  the  Reformation, 

in  The  Catholic  World,  Vol.  78,  March, 

1904;  pp.  791-796.                             (B.) 

5.     1904 

Stone,  J.  M. 

Reformation  and  Renaissance,  1377-1610. 

London.     This  handsome  illustrated  oc- 

tavo does  not  rely  for  its  Biblical  informa- 

tion on  recent  authorities,  quoting  chiefly 

Stevens's  Catalogue  of  1877.     It  is  also 

disfigured  by  strange  blunders.        (W.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


357 


F.— WORKS  ON   THE    STANDARD    ROMAN    CATHOLIC 
VERSIONS 


Date. 


Author. 


Particulars. 


1.  1582 

2.  1588 

3.  1589 


Martin,  Gregory. 
Withers,  G. 
Fulke,  William. 


4.  1786 


5.  1824 


6.  1843 


7.  1855 


Geddes,  A.  T.  (LL.D.) 

Ward,  Thomas. 
Fulke,  William. 

Cotton,  Henry. 


8.  1859 


Newman,  J.  H. 
dinal). 


A  Discovery  of  the  Manifold  Corruptions 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  Heret^kes  of 
Our  Daies,  especially  the  English  Sec- 
taries. Rhemes.  (B.) 

A  View  of  the  Marginal  Notes  of  the  Popish 
Testament,  translated  into  English  by  the 
English  fugitive  Papists  resident  at 
Rheims  in  France.  London.  (D  ) 

The  Text  of  the  New  Testament  of  Jesus 
Christ.  .  .  .  (W.,  D.) 

A  parallel  edition  of  the  Rheims  and 
Bishops'  Versions  with  controversial  an- 
notations. 

This  was  reprinted  in  1601,  1617,  1633, 
always  with  the  Bishops'  Version,  and 
evidently  contributed  to  the  influence  ex- 
ercised by  the  Rheims  Testament  on  King 
James's  revision.  (W.) 

Prospectus  of  a  New  Translation  of  the 
Holy  Bible  from  Corrected  Texts  of  the 
Originals,  compared  with  Ancient  Ver- 
sions and  various  readings,  explanatory 
notes  and  critical  observations.  Glasgow, 
(W.,  B.) 

Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible.  Philadel- 
phia. (W.,  D.) 

First  published  1688.  Reprinted, 
1818,  as  appendix  to  the  Cork  edition  of 
Poynter's  Bible.  (W.) 

A  Defence  of  the  Sincere  and  True  Transla- 
tions of  the  Holy  Scripture  into  the  Eng- 
lish Tongue,  Again  ft  the  Cavils  of 
Gregory  Martin.  Ed.  C.  H.  Hartshorne. 
(Parker  Society  Publications,  No.  10.) 

(B.) 

Reprint  of  1617.  (D.) 

Rhemes  and  Doway.  An  attempt  to  show 
what  has  been  done  by  Roman  Catholics 
for  the  diffusion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
English.  Oxford.  (W.,  B.,  D.) 

Stigmatized  by  Newman  as  so  anti-Cath- 
olic that  he  declined  "  to  use  him  with  that 
ready  and  unfaltering  confidence,  which 
would  be  natural."  Therefpre,  while  the 
writer  has  no  reason  ptherwise  to  distrust 
Cotton,  scarcely  a  single  statement  has 
been  made  in  his  essay  on  the  authority 
of  this  work,  germane  as  it  is  to  the  sub- 
ject. (W.) 
(Car-  The  History  of  the  Text  of  the  Rheims  and 
Douay  Versions  of  Holy  Scripture.  Re- 
printed 1902  in  his  Tracts  Theological  and 
Ecclesiastical  403-445.  London  and  New 
York.  (B.) 


358 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Date.    \               Author. 

Particulars. 

9.  1859 

10.  1874 
11.  1878 

12.  1900 
13.  1900 
14.  1902 

Shea,  John  Gilmary. 

Newman,  J.  H. 

Douay,    English    Col- 
lege. 

Butler,  T.  J. 
McCabe,  L.  R. 
Carleton,  J.  G. 

A  Bibliographical  Account  of  the  Catholic 
Bibles,  Testaments  and  Other  Portions  of 
Scripture,  translated  from  the  Latin  Vul- 
gate and  printed  in  the  United  States. 
New  York.                                           (D.) 
The  reprint  of  1874  has  been  used  here,  most 
extensively.                                  (D.,  W.) 
The  first  and  second  diaries  of  the  English 
College,  Douay,  and  an  appendix  of  un- 
published documents,  edited  by  Fathers 
of  the  Congregation  of  the  London  Ora- 
tory, with  historical  introduction  by  T. 
F.  Knox.     London.     (Records  of  English 
Catholics  under  the  Penal  Laws  I.)   (B.) 
The  Douay   Bible.      Irish    Ecclesiastical 
Record,  Series  4,  Vol.  VIII.,   pp.  23-35. 
Dublin.                                                 (D.) 
The   Story   of    the   Daly   Bible.     Catholic 
World,  Vol.  70,  pp.  809-820.     New  York. 
(D.) 
The  Part  of  Rheims  in  the  Making  of  the 
English  Bible.     Oxford.             (W.,  B.) 

Ecclesiastical  Approbation,  etc. 


15.  1877 

16.  1884 


Acta  et  Deer  eta  Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimor  en- 
sis  Secundi.  Baltimore. 

Acta  et  Decreta  Concilii  Plenarii  BaUi- 
morensis  Tertii.  Baltimore. 


G.— BOOKS  ON  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE.     (PROTESTANT 
VERSIONS.) 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.  1730 
2.  1731 

3.  1818 
4.  1841 

5.  1841 

Johnson. 
Lewis,  John. 

Lewis,  John. 
(Tregelles?). 

Historical  Account  of  the  Several  English 
Translations  of  the  Bible.                  (W.) 
A  History  of  the  Several  Translations  of  the 
Holy    Bible    and    New    Testament    into 
English,  etc.     (In  preface   to   Wy  cliff  e'  s 
New  Testament,  edition  of  1731.) 
(W.,  B.) 
A  Complete  History,  etc.     3d  ed.     London, 
(W.,  D.) 
The  English  Hexapla,  exhibiting  the  six  im- 
portant translations  with  preface.     Bag- 
ster  (ed.).                                             (D.) 
An  historical  account  of  the  English  trans- 
lations.     Prefixed  to  some  editions  of 
Bagster's  Hexapla.     The  publishers  can- 
celled one  account,  and  the  title  page.  .  .  . 
Not  a  single  title  page  of  five  copies  con- 
sulted is  accurate  in  its  description  of  the 
versions  printed.                             :  (W.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


359 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

6.  1852 

Cotton,  Henry. 

Editions  of  the  Bible  and  Parts  thereof  in 

English,    from    the    year    MDV     to 

MDCCCL.  ...     Second   edition,    cor- 

rected and  enlarged  from  an  edition  in 

1821.     Oxford.                              (W.,  D.) 

First  edition  in  1821.     Used  freely  for 

this  essay.                                            ("W  .) 

7.  1856 

Anderson,  C. 

The  Annals  of  the  English  Bible  abridged 

and    continued    by    S.    J.    Prince.     New 

York.                                                       (D.) 

8.  1862 

Anderson,  C. 

The  Annals  of  the  English  Bible.     A  new 

and  revised  edition,  edited  by  his  nephew, 
Hugh  Anderson,  London.     First  edition 

9.  1865 

Fry,  Francis. 

in  1845.     The  modern  pioneer.  (W.,  B.) 
Description  of  the  Great  Bible  and  Editions 

of  the  Authorized  Version.     London. 

(D.) 

10.  1867 
11.  1870 

Fry,  Francis. 

The  Bible  by  Coverdale.  London.  (W.,  D.) 
Translators'  Preface  to  the  Authorized  Ver- 

sion, being  an  exact  reprint  of  the  original 

edition  of  1611.     London.                  (B.) 

12.  1872 

Westcott,  B.  F. 

A  General  View  of  the  History  of  the  English 

Bible.     London.                            (W.,  B.) 

13.  1876 

Eadie,  John. 

The  English  Bible,  an  exegetical  and  critical 

history  of  the  various  English  versions  of 
Scripture.     2  vols.     London. 

(W.,  B.,  D.) 

14.  1878 

Blunt,  J.  H. 

English  Bible,  in  Encyclopaedia  Britannica 

VIII.                                                    (W.) 

15.  1878 

Fry,  Francis. 

Bibliographical  description  of  the  Editions 

of  the  New   Testament.     London. 

16.  1878 

Moulton  W.  F. 

(W.,  B.,  D.) 
History  of  the  English  Bible.    London,  1878. 
A    handbook   with    copious    examples 

illustrating  the  ancestry  and  relationship 
of  the  several  versions.                 (W.,  D.) 

17.  1882 

Condit,  B. 

The  History   of   the   English   Bible.     New 

York  and  Chicago.                                (B.) 

18.  1883 

Mombert,  J.  J. 

English  Versions  of  the  Bible.     London.     2d 

ed.     1891.                                    (W.,  D.) 

19.  1883 

Richey,  T. 

What  is  the  Bible?     New  York.            (D.) 

20.  1884 

Scrivener,  F.  H.  A. 

The    Authorized    Edition    of    the    English 

Bible  (1611),  its  subsequent  reprints  and 

modern      representatives.       Cambridge: 

21.  1888 

Dore,  J.  R. 

Old  Bibles.     An  account  of  the  Early  Ver- 

sions of  the  English  Bible.     London. 

(D.) 

22.  1889 

Edgar,  A. 

The  Bibles  of  England.     A  plain  account  for 
plain  people  of  the  principal  versions  of 

the  Bible  in  English.     London.         (D.) 
A  most  admirable  account,  popular  and 

accurate.                                             (W.) 

23    1889 

Smyth,  J.  Paterson. 

How   we   Got    our   Bible.     Sixth    edition. 

London  and  Dublin.                    (W.,  D.) 

24    1892 

Wright,  John. 

Early  Bibles  of  America.     New  York. 

25.  1894 

Pattison,  T.  H. 

(W.) 
History  of  the  English  Bible.               (W.) 

360 


BIBLE  VERSIONS  COMPARED 


Date, 


26.  1901 


27.  1902Hoare,H.W 


28.  1903 


Author. 


(Booklovers'    Library 
Philadelphia  1901.) 


Darlow,  T.    H.,   and 
Moule,  H.  F. 


29.  1905  Heaton,  W.  J. 


30.  1905  Wright-Westcott. 


31.(n.d.)  Pollard,  A.  W. 
32.(n.d.)  Stoughton,  John. 


Particulars. 


The  English  Bible :  How  we  Got  it.  (Course 
24,  Booklovers'  Reading  Club.)  Contents: 
Books  selected  for  this  course,  Pres.  W. 
R.  Harper  and  Prof.  J.  F.  Genung.  . 
The  English  Bible,  W.  N.  Clarke.  .  .  . 
A  Century  with  Versions  and  Editions,  J. 
F.  Genung.  .  .  .  The  Bible  as  one  of  the 
World's  Great  Literatures,  R.  G.  Moulton. 
.  .  .  The  American  Revised  Version  of 
1901,  C.  T.  Chester  (editor).  .  .  .  Edito- 
rial notes,  etc.  (B.) 

The  Evolution  of  the  English  Bible;  a  his- 
torical sketch  of  the  successive  versions 
from  1382  to  1885.  2d  ed.  with  bibli- 
ography, portraits  and  specimen  pages 
from  old  Bibles.  London.  (W.,  B.) 

Historical  Catalogue  of  the  Printed  Editions 
of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  Library  of  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  ...  in 
2  vols.  Vol.  I.,  English.  London.  In- 
valuable for  the  purposes  of  this  essay. 

(W.) 

Our  Own  English  Bible,  its  translators  and 
their  work.  2  vols.  London. 

Only  the  first  volume,  on  the  MS  Bible, 
is  yet  published.  For  that  period  it  seems 
the  fullest  account.  (W.) 

A  General  View  of  the  History  of  the  English 
Bible,  by  B.  F.  Westcott,  D.D.  Third 
edition  revised  by  W.  A.  Wright.  Lon- 
don and  New  York.  Not  up  to  date. 
Nothing  after  1660.  Within  its  limits 
most  valuable.  (W.) 

English  Literature.  The  English  Bible. 
Philadelphia,  pp.  22.  (B.) 

Our  English  Bible,  its  Translations  and 
Translators.  London.  (B.,  D.) 


H.— WORKS  ON  REVISION 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

1.  1727 
2.  1845 

3.  1857 
4.  1858 

5.  1870 
6.  1871 

Scrivener,  ff.  H. 
Beard,  ff. 
Trench,  R.  C. 

Bishop  Ellicott. 
Bishop  Lightfoot. 

Essay  for  a  New  Translation  of  the  Bible 
London.                                                  (B.) 
A   Supplement  to  the  Authorized   English 
Version  of  the  New  Testament.     London. 
(D.) 
A  Revised  English  Bible,  the  Want  of  the 
Church    and    the   Demand    of    the    Age. 
London.                                                (D.) 
On  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment,   in    connection    with   some    recent 
proposals  for  its  revision.                   (D.) 
Considerations  on  the  Revision  of  the  Eng- 
lish Version.     London.                      (D.) 
On  a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  English  New 
Testament.     London.                          (D.) 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 


361 


Date. 

Author. 

Particulars. 

7.  1879 

Schaff,  Philip. 

Bible  Revision,  by  members  of  the  Ameri- 

can Revision  Committee.     New  York. 

(D.) 

8.  1881 

Newth,  Samuel. 

Lectures  on  Bible  Revision.     London.  (B.) 

9.  1882 

Cook,  F.  C. 

The  Revised    Version   of  the   First   Three 

Gospels.     (This  deals  with   the  English 

Revised  Version.)     London.             (D.) 

10.  1883 

Schaff,  Philip 

A  Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  and 

the  English    Version.     New   York. 

(W.,  D.) 

"  An  admirable  book  .  .  .  treating  ...  of 

the  .  .  .  Revised  Version.  An  authoritative 

history  of  the  latter  from  the  standpoint 

of  an  American  reviser."     Fourth  edition. 

1892.                                                     (W.) 

11.  1883 

Burgon,  J.  W. 

The  Revision  Revised.                              (B.) 

12.  1884 

Abbott,  E.  A.,  and  W. 

The    Common    Tradition    of   the   Synoptic 

C.  Rushbrooke. 

Gospels  in  the  Text  of  the  Revised  (Eng- 

lish) Version.     London.                     (D.) 

13.  1886 

Chambers,  T.  W. 

Companion  to  the  Revised  Old  Testament. 

London.                                                (D.) 

14.  1897 

Westcott,  B.  F. 

Some  Lessons  of  the  Revised  Version  of  the 

New  Testament.     London.                (D.) 

15.  1898 

Whiton,  J.  M. 

The  American  Revision  of  the  Bible.     In 

the  Outlook,  Vol.  58,  Feb.  12,  1898;   pp. 
417-419.                                               (B.) 

16.  1899 

Field,  F. 

Notes  on  the  Translation  of  the  New  Testa- 

ment.    Cambridge.                              (D.) 

17.  1899 

31apperton,  J.  A. 

Pitfalls  in  Biblical  English.     London. 

(B.) 

18.  1901 

Ellicott,  C.  J.  (Bp.  of 

Addresses  on  the  Revised  Version  of  Holy 

Gloucester). 

Scripture.     London.                           (D.) 

19..  1901 

Ellicott,  C.  J. 

Report  of  the  Joint  Commission  on  Mar- 

ginal Readings  in  the  Bible  to  the  General 

Convention  of  1901.                            (D.) 

20.  1902 

Wylie,  D.  G. 

The    American    Standard    Edition    of    the 

Revised  Bible  in  Pulpit  and  Pew.     New 

York.                                                       (B.) 

21.  1902 
1903 

j-  Whitney,  H.  M. 

The  Latest  Translation  of  the  Bible.     In  the 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Vol.  59,  April,  1902,  pp. 

217-237;  July,  1902,  pp.  451-475;  Octo 

ber,  1902,    pp.   653-681;    Vol.  60,  Jan. 

1903,  pp.  109-120;  April,  1903,  pp.  342- 

357.                                                        (B.) 

22.  1903 

Davidson,  A.  B 

Biblical  and  Literary  Essays,  edited  by  J. 

A.  Patterson.     No.  VIII.     The  English 

Bible  and  its  Revision.                      (D.) 

23.  1903 

Roseman,  William. 

Hebraisms   in   the  Authorized  Version  of 

the  Bible.     Baltimore.                        (B.) 

24.  1904 

Body,  C.  W.  E. 

Companion  to  the  Marginal  Readings  in  the 
Bible  Authorized  by  the  General  Convention 

0/1901.     New  York.                          (D.) 

RETURN       CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO"«fr>       202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Des 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JUN  1  6  1978 


REG.  CO.      MAY  3  0 


78 


JUL22 


FORM  NO.  DD6,  40m  10 '77 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELE> 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


BEC^LD 


1    I 


